Nicodemus

Joined

• started 8 topics
• posted 61 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Nicodemus

• 
  1

  Interesting Parallels for JW's & Muslims?

  by Nicodemus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this most interesting article appeared on the wall street journal's opinion page today.. .

  islam's silent majority .

  white americans unlearned hatred.

  1. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  Just one round of 'bttt' for this post.

  I didn't do a good job of indicating that I had added a couple of questions/comments at the bottom which nagged at my little brain as I read the article.
• 
  15

  Organization Pulled inTwo Directions

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  consistent with the factions working behind the scenes, the.

  organization is being pulled in two directions:.

  first, to survive, they must get dumber and crazier.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  Hmmm . . .

  During this Sunday's WT Study, the words of Isaiah 60:17 are considered, where the prophecy says: "Instead of the copper I shall bring in gold . . . and I will appoint peace as your overseers and righteousness as your task assigners."

  The study, of course, applies these words to the "progressive" changes made in "theocratic procedure" over the years, and how we all "benefit" from these. This is cited as one of many evidences that Jehovah is "blessing our organization in these last days."

  I wonder if some of our brothers, particularly in the New York area, are going to find it hard to reconcile that with a certain article in the New York Times this past Sunday.
• 
  1

  Interesting Parallels for JW's & Muslims?

  by Nicodemus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this most interesting article appeared on the wall street journal's opinion page today.. .

  islam's silent majority .

  white americans unlearned hatred.

  1. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  This most interesting article appeared on the Wall Street Journal's opinion page today.

  Islam's Silent Majority White Americans unlearned hatred. So must Muslims. BY ROBERT ASGHAR
  Friday, August 9, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

  Innocents are killed in Murree, Pakistan, at a school that I visited from time to time as a teenager. Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl loses his life in Karachi, a town that was once my home. And an Islamabad church is attacked, just a few miles away from another previous home. In each incident, the name of Allah is invoked. The question is then asked once again: Is Islam a religion of peace?

  Many Muslims are peaceful, and I was raised in one such family. However, it's quite clear that they are by and large not the hosts of the party, but rather bashful guests. For the sake of their faith--and for the sake of a world that Islam professes to care about--the time has come for them to step forward, take control of their assembly, and kick out those who preach a more violent version of the faith.

  My family's story intersects in odd ways with the narrative being played out globally. While recognizing the demands of self-defense and just war, I have a pacifistic streak; that streak did not seem to be accommodated within Islam, so I affiliated with another religion, much to the chagrin of my family.

  Here is where they began setting a good example for their faith. Many such families toss out apostates in the best-case scenario and often do much more--a Kurdish immigrant in Sweden killed his adult daughter in January for defying their heritage. But my family made peace with my decision and kept me in the fold.

  When it came to light after Sept. 11 that Pakistani madrassas had nourished a culture of hatred, my father used a significant amount of his life savings to build new schools in his mud-hut hometown village--schools that would offer a liberal education and inculcate an anti-extremist approach to civil life and offer economic opportunity to marginalized youths.

  Such acts come at the risk of inflaming the passions of radicals. People like my father will need the support and protection of like-minded moderates. Most Muslims are in fact both moderate and cowardly, but perhaps understandably so; they are buffeted by bullying forces unlike anything we know. American agnostics who dislike saying the Pledge of Allegiance, like spoiled princesses who feel a pea under a stack of mattresses, have no idea how good they have it.

  The bullying limits opposition to nothing more than snide mutterings among progressives cowering at dinner parties in Pakistan, Palestine or Saudi Arabia. Far be it from them to challenge extremism publicly, however--it's not worth the fight or the trouble, in their minds.

  But now their very civilization is at stake--and so is that of the West. It's time to put one's money where one's prayers are. The rest of the world is looking on with puzzlement and fear, wondering where the heart of Islam lies. In all likelihood, the outcry against Islam will grow deafening in coming months and years. This will polarize moderate Muslims: Either they will feel under attack and align themselves fully with their fundamentalist cousins, or they will become radical moderates, fighting for the honor of Islam against these backward cousins. The former scenario would be a disaster for the planet.

  Here, one can learn from white Americans. Fifty years ago, racist views were tolerated, even encouraged by mainstream society. The Marge Schotts of our nation used to get away with their rantings, thanks to the tepid response of most white citizens; but now, such bigots are ostracized with devastating swiftness. Sure, you can be a racist--but you'd better keep it under wraps if you plan on working in this town again.

  Let that be a lesson for Muslims. Too many people have been thrown out of Muslim families for being insufficiently fundamentalist. Start throwing out sons and daughters for being insufficiently peaceful. Too many Muslims are more bothered by competing forms of monotheism than by demonic forces rumbling in their own camp. Too many hundreds of millions of Muslims can tolerate, rationalize and even promote violence. All this must change, and change now.

  Granted, the language of the Koran can seem aggressive and belligerent to some ears. But let the graceful image of Prophet Mohammed, depicted by scholars such as Huston Smith, become the normative one for Muslims and Westerners alike. The prophet was long-suffering and merciful toward Meccan authorities who had abused him during his ministry. Let a Palestinian child meditate on that. Let Muslims tolerate no lower standard of civic life, and divorce all those who would object.

  The five million Muslims who call the United States home are the best candidates to step forward and set this standard. Doing so would give Islam an authentic claim as a religion of peace.

  Mr. Asghar is a Los Angeles-based editor of management and leadership books.

  It seems to me that this perceptive article finds many parallels within the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses today, as follows:

  1. The comment about peaceful Muslims being, not "hosts," but "bashful guests." There are many fine individuals amidst the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it would seem that, unfortunately, they are relegated to the role of "bashful guests" when it comes to matters of policy and procedure.

  2. How "apostates" are viewed and dealt with.

  3. The fact that "progressives" often "cower" because the deck seems to be stacked against any who would step forward and try to fight the culture, thus they feel it is "not worth the fight or the trouble."

  4. Finally, one could say that " Granted, the language of the [Bible] can seem aggressive and belligerent to some ears." However, if one carefully reviews, and honestly evaluates the life and example of our Lord Jesus Christ, one finds a personality which was far from "aggressive and belligerent." If, indeed, he is our model (1 Pe 2:21), then let's start allowing his personality and disposition to reflect in all we do. Can his model not be the "normative" one for examplary Jehovah's Witnesses?
• 
  29

  So-called Bible Scholars........

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it is not a difficult thing to do to criticize wts literature, however i found this comment in a recent wt very enlightening as it seems to explain the unscholarly nature of much of what they produce.

  it also is an object lesson on how to manipulate a conditioned group of people by the use of 'trigger words'.

  i have highlighted these expressions, which are deliberately used by writing, as we have previously discussed to 'encourage' the readers to adopt a patently flawed line of reasoning.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  Hillary,

  Your analysis of that particular paragraph is most insightful.

  I also gave a lot of thought to that section of the lesson as we studied it this past week. I can see the issue from two perspectives:

  Positive Perspective

  One risk with any given study is that you can "fail to see the forest for the trees." That you can get so engrossed in details that you miss the big, and possibly marvelous, picture. I find that I also have to agree at some level with their observation that at least some "scholars" have lost their own faith in the Bible as a living, breathing message from God, and view it as purely a human book. If that is true, than all religion based on the Bible, not merely the brand practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses, is pointless.

  Negative Perspective

  Having said the above, I still found a frightening rhetoric present in that paragraph, as well as the one that followed. For Jehovah's Witnesses have based many of their own policies and procedures on such "word studies." For example, the alleged connection involving the Greek word 'pharmakia' with both spiritism and drug use, resulting in a disfellowshipping policy for smoking. Or the word 'agonizesthe' or 'agonize' (Lu 13:24) which has been used over and over again to imply that those whom do not exert themselves to this level in the ministry could be at risk. Many other examples could be shared.

  With respect to the second issue raised, regarding to whom particular books were written. Hasn't the Society always encouraged Bible readers, when analyzing any given passage, to consider the context? Wouldn't that include the question of to whom the book was written, and why? As just one example, might such a consideration, just possibly, be harmful to our interpretation of 2 Tim 3 re: the last days? For, if that were to be interpreted the way we do, why was it recorded in a personal letter to one man, not one of Paul's many letters to entire congregations, or even groups of congregations?
• 
  33

  JW's Kicked out of Ground Zero!

  by Mister Biggs in

  1. social
  2. current

  i knew it!!!

  the article is lengthy but june brown, a retired legal secretary from atlanta and veteran salvation army relief volunteer, said this about jw's:.

  "a lot of people don't like it when they grab you by the collar," brown said.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  I found these two quotes interesting:

  Prohibitions against religious proselytizing at Red Cross disaster operations have prompted Baptist relief officials to seek closer ties to the Salvation Army, which doesn't discourage "witnessing," Belt said.

  "We send our counselors in the guise of kitchen workers, wiping the tables, who just ask if there is anything they can do," he said. "That opens more doors."

  Hmm . . .
• 
  24

  Dateline Precursor: CBS 60 Min. w/Leslie Stahl

  by Room 215 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  how many of you out there remember the cbs 60 minutes program several years ago when correspondent leslie stahl examined the jw child custody issues?

  it may well have provided a clue as to how the upcoming dateline segement will play out.

  predictably, the society emerged with something of a black eye, especially because of its cowardly refusal to produce even one gb or bethel bigshot spokesman to defend its duplicitous policies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  Room 215,

  I think that's a fair question. The truth is that I don't have enough recollection about any of the specifics to contribute a meaningful comment.

  I'm sure my argument could be debated from a variety of perspectives. I think my bigger point is that the CBS show came across as a bit of a "hit piece." At best, I think the example I gave was perceived by many, including non-Witnesses, as "making a mountain out of a molehill." For active JWs, it gave them a very easy "out" in believing the presentation was a rather blatant attempt to "bash" the Witnesses.

  The upcoming Dateline, in my opinion, might have a much greater effect. Certainly, the issue of child molestation meets the test I suggested of being "legitimate" and "carry[ing] some weight." Next questions will be: What, exactly, is it alleged that the JW organization did, or didn't do? Is sufficient evidence presented to make a convincing case? Would it leave an honest, thinking, JW genuinely troubled? Is the issue clear enough, and the evidence troubling enough, that it would become difficult for a JW to discuss it with an individual when preaching to them at their door?
• 
  24

  Dateline Precursor: CBS 60 Min. w/Leslie Stahl

  by Room 215 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  how many of you out there remember the cbs 60 minutes program several years ago when correspondent leslie stahl examined the jw child custody issues?

  it may well have provided a clue as to how the upcoming dateline segement will play out.

  predictably, the society emerged with something of a black eye, especially because of its cowardly refusal to produce even one gb or bethel bigshot spokesman to defend its duplicitous policies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  One thing that must be remembered is that, for a show to be successful in accurately pointing out flaws of the JWs, it must not only pick the issues it raises carefully--ensuring that they are both legitimate and of some weight--but it must also use good reasoning and logic in challenging the given JW position or practice.

  While I don't remember every last detail of the Leslie Stahl show precisely now, my recollection is that the show "shot itself in the foot" by taking some almost childish, petulent digs at the Witnesses. And, because of that, even many non-Witnesses were not too impressed.

  One specific example that I recall: The show posited that JW parents were terrible parents because they required their children to accompany them in the door-to-door ministry. The shows' reasoning for this position was that at least some children did not like having to do this. If memory serves, I believe they even had a couple of on-camera comments from kids to that effect. For parents to do such a thing, it was argued, was certainly unkind, if not downright abusive.

  However, parents from many walks of life ask their children to do all kinds of things that the kids don't like. Included in this are things like going to school, brushing their teeth every day, or eating their vegetables. Would it be alleged that such requirements were abusive?

  Now, it might be argued that the above are either legal requirements, or common sense health matters. Let's go a step further then. What about the parent who "forces" their kid to join Little League Baseball? Or soccer? Or to take piano or violin lessons? None of these things are legal requirements. And, it could be argued, the parents' requirements in these scenarios might be more an expression of their life values and beliefs than those of their kids.

  The point is that all types of parents require their kids to do all kinds of things, not all of which the kids would choose on their own. This does not necessarily make the parents bad parents.

  And that gets back to my main point. If an "expose" show is going to be successful, it has to be of a little better quality than was that 60 Minutes episode.
• 
  4

  Do Judgemental Religions Cause Poverty?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  suppose a human "mind virus" gets hold of you.. because of this new programming, you now view the.

  world in a dicotomy - there's you (good) and everyone else.

  (bad).. doesn't sound like recipe for success, does it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  I think there are several factors at work here:

  1. Per the 2001 annual report—and, for that matter, the last several annual reports—about the only increases seen are in countries that are either politically unstable or economically disadvantaged. For common, simple people (and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense, simply a matter-of-fact sense) who live under truly sad conditions, the message of a beautiful paradise is extremely appealing, just as Jesus’ message was to downtrodden Jews in the first century. Poverty in these circumstances may be more systemic than personal.

  2. Now contrast the few that are still being baptized in more advanced countries. I believe that a large percentage of these are “black and white” thinkers, and are actually attracted by the “exclusive” and somewhat judgmental message that JW’s preach. It is my belief that the fact the organization tends to be judgmental is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. The black-and-white, judgmental message tends to be attractive to black-and-white, judgmental people, and the whole process feeds on itself. This may relate to poverty in that this type of person will tend not to be as open-minded and receptive to change as is often called for to make a success of career and financial life in the more advanced cultures.

  Add to these the factors Skeptic mentions, and the picture starts to round itself into shape.

  What I find fascinating, though, is that there are quite a few JW’s who don’t fall into these categories, and actually do very well for themselves financially. Ironically, it is often these individuals who make the most progressive, compassionate and competent elders.
• 
  16

  Preconceived Ideas

  by Frenchy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the article: acquire a heart agreeable to jehovah w10/15/01.

  7. a key requirement for acquiring a pure heart is that of gaining accurate knowledge of gods will and purposes.

  there is only one source of that knowledge, the inspired word of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  Just wanted to say that the thoughts in Paragraph 13 stood out for me as well.

  Of course, I think most Witnesses would say that the writer was directing those words to ones newly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, who might have to relinquish "personal ideas" or "cherished doctrinal views."

  But I wonder myself. I too thought the comment interesting in that it is found in the context, not of an Awake! article, or a "supplementary" Watchtower article, but rather directly in a study article, given that probably 95% of those who considered it are already dedicated, baptized Witnesses.
• 
  35

  Mistakes Admitted by WTS?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  mistakes admitted by wts?

  i seek feedback on the following series of questions:.

  1. has the watchtower society publicly admitted its mistakes?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nicodemus

  Marvin,

  My “two cents” on this topic.

  I have wondered about the legal aspects of this issue myself. It seems to me that the Society doesn’t necessarily have a problem admitting mistakes in the distant past. The best example that I can think of is that almost every publication we put out for internal consumption, it seems, talks about how Jehovah “judged his organization” in the years leading up to 1919. It sure seems that the Society clearly admits that errors were made during that period. But, of course, all involved are long gone from the earthly scene.

  For example, an entire chapter is devoted to this period, and the fight for control over the Society, in the Proclaimers book. However, the events in Bethel in the late-1970’s and early-1980’s are given only very brief mention, without any specifics. From a historical perspective, it could be argued that these events--culminating in the dismissal, and later disfellowshipping, of an active member of the Governing Body--were as significant as anything in the Rutherford era.

  To be fair, with respect to the 1975 issue, some fairly straightforward admissions of error are made in the Proclaimers book. Examples:

  jv 104 8 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975)
  At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’

  In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). (bold mine)

  and:

  jv 632-3 28 Testing and Sifting From Within
  Later on, during the years from 1935 through 1944, a review of the overall framework of Bible chronology revealed that a poor translation of Acts 13:19, 20 in the King James Version, along with certain other factors, had thrown off the chronology by over a century. This later led to the idea—sometimes stated as a possibility, sometimes more firmly—that since the seventh millennium of human history would begin in 1975, events associated with the beginning of Christ’s Millennial Reign might start to take place then. (bold mine)

  However, it must also be remembered that these statements were not published until 18 years after the fact.

  And this is where I feel the Society falls short in setting the example for their own flock. It is as if any apology almost needs to be forced out through pure weight of embarrassment, and is only then given briefly, somewhat grudgingly, and couched in defensive terms (“yes, some statements were inadvisable, but we also said . . .). How does that compare with Saul’s response when confronted by the prophet Samuel? (1 Sa 15:17-29)

  If elders, husbands, wives, parents, yes all Christians, adopt such as their policy for apologizing, what kind of organization will we have?