Posts by arko

12

February 2012 KM out yet?

by Gayle in

arko_n9ne

Lmao! @Atlantis
Mickey got the drop on those KM's, but you always go above and beyond.

Any chance you're ANON>?

44

Kelly Jarka Case

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

did anybody see 20/20 investigation discovery earlier this evening?

it was all about kelly jarka who is serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife.

took place in murietta, california.

arko_n9ne

@stealthcalling a Jehovah's Witness a hostile witness is hi-friggin-larious!

@steve2You know, maybe you're right. My unbalanced mind forgot all the human rights violations. Let's go down the list of the scandal that is the Russian Government:

Surgically removing a deemed "rebel" from his/her family and the public eye. Insidious to the point they'll annouce his/her death.
Brainwashing the masses with mind-control regiments and the endless years of psychological and emotional abuse to keep order.
Severest punishments ordered on those who question or negatively criticize the government.
Turning Families into spies against each other.

And their shadow play:

Censorship as well as banning "propagandist" materials critical of the movement (in many cases, the "propaganda" is destroyed.).
Secret Committees that use exclusive, confidential information that would be disastrous if revealed to the public.
Coded messages and secret languages delivered via clandestine operatives.
Lying for gains (personal and monetary) as well as espionage.
Embezzlement of Charitable Funds & Heavily Misrepresented Allocations of donations.

Yes, Russia has a sordid history of human rights violations....wait...wait just a second!
This list of squalid tact--it's doesn't apply just to the Russian Government. In fact, it applies to the Watchtower Society! OH. MY. GOODNESS. Who would have thought.

The fact of the matter @steve2 is that Russia isn't lining up Witnesses in the streets and gunning them down by the dozen. It's not arresting Witnesses for being Witnesses. There is no real mistreatment here, especially when you take Matthew 5:38 into account. There is also Matthew 7:12 which you can use separately or pair well with 5:38's oaky Savignon flavor.

Unlike the United States, The European Union, and many other countries, Russia defined what they viewed as a religion and what is to be viewed as an extremist cult. Here in the states, the legal definition of a religion is "any belief structure that fills the spot in an individual where there is usually God." It's reworded a hundred different ways in a hundred different books, but in the United States, you don't even have to believ in God to be in a religion. You just need to believe in whatever it is you believe in.

The majority of the world is on a sensitivity binge and refuses to further define a division between acceptable and unacceptable religion. So any charismatic person with a knowledge of the workings of human error and faith can claim they are God and get a tax break. And I know why you would support lack of a definition.

@steve2 would say: "if you let governments define religion, they can use their personal choice of religion as the standard, and there wouldn't be freedom from religious persecution."

But that's not the case. Define a religion by the lack of contradiction in it's beliefs as well as noting the difference in doctrine from the source material. As Russia has done already. If you are sitting on a book that you are telling thousands to millions is the infallible word of your God, then there should be zero error or contradiction. No margin of inaccuracy. Your religion is what your book says it is without speculation.

But the WTS doesn't have that road block, so they can buy land across the world tax free. Yeah, they are a shady real estate company, remember? They can dodge restrictions legitimate corporations are legally forced to obide by. How expensive IS Russian property? I bet the WTS can afford alot if they were allowed to recruit in Russia.

But they aren't. The Russian Government deemed the Watchtower "extremist" and blacklisted certain publications from the Society they view as extremist. It's a law in Russia. A law, get it? The WTS acknowledges the "superior authorities" as worldly Government and must follow the laws of that region. I mean, it was their excuse for encouraging brothers to bribe military officials in Mexico. "It's the policy of the region."

During Prohibition, if you bought or sold alcohol, you were arrested. Currently, in the States, there is this pesky SOPA bill that will prosecute and imprison people who link or stream copyrighted material online. No matter what the opinion of the law is, you have to follow it or you go to jail.

The Russian government listed about 40 publications that are illegal to distribute or possess. 40 publications out of thousands. That is all that government levied against Witnesses. No violations of human rights. Just protecting Russian minds from indoctrination that is harmful to the spirit (or what have you).

How many books has the WTS banned? I know there isn't a list or given number. The answer is "anything not written by the FDS."

How many human rights does the WTS violate? You're in Australia, so with all that Victoria court drama, you know personally that it's a long list that includes allowing child molestors to hurt kids.

But what do I know? My thinking is "unbalanced." Unhinged, even.

~Ryan Kent

44

Kelly Jarka Case

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

did anybody see 20/20 investigation discovery earlier this evening?

it was all about kelly jarka who is serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife.

took place in murietta, california.

arko_n9ne

in 5 years there wont be a single loyal witness who will acknowledge he ever attended a meeting with them. and in six years if the appeal is successful they will welcome him back with that christian love they have in abundance.

i think russia has the right idea with how to treat cults.

13

Blood Transfusion Revisited Like Never Before (with a gift to readers)

by arko_n9ne in

blood, blood, blood.

blah, blah, blah.

we'll see.. the resource material is from january 2000's awake!

arko_n9ne

Blood, blood, blood. Blah, blah, blah. It's all been said before, right?

We'll see.

The resource material is from January 2000's Awake! Magazine. If you have your copy, you should pull it out and dust it off, if you don't have a copy, here is the link to the Watchtower page's version: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000108/article_02.htm
(you don't need to click if you don't want to raise the WTS.org's hit rate)

The article in discussion is Blood Transfusions - A Long History of Controversy

The new dynamic to the article is the reference material. They name several doctors, and I would like to give you all a bit of information about them that the WTS fails to mention to the casual reader/negligent brother or sister.

"But in 1873, F. Gesellius, a Polish doctor, slowed the transfusion revival with a frightening discovery: More than half the transfusions performed had ended in death. Upon learning this, eminent physicians began denouncing the procedure. The popularity of transfusions once again waned."

Franz Gesellius was a polish doctor and medical author who is only notable for having recorded that of all transfusion recipients up to 1872, 56% died from complications. People for the next 27 years after the release of his report had never heard of "blood types."

"Then, in 1878, French physician Georges Hayem perfected a saline solution, which he claimed could serve as a substitute for blood. Unlike blood, the saline solution had no side effects, did not clot, and was easy to transport. Understandably, Hayem's saline solution came to be widely used. Strangely, however, opinion soon favored blood again."

Georges Hayem was a french hematologist, who is notable for the first accurate platelet count of blood, identifying hemolytic anemia, and creating a solution to act as a blood thinner. I looked all over the internet and google books for any reference to the alternative to blood, but all I've found were Witness biased articles.

"But early in the 20th century, Dr. Richard Lewisohn, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, successfully experimented with an anticoagulant called sodium citrate. This exciting breakthrough was regarded by some doctors as a miracle. "It was almost as if the sun had been made to stand still," wrote Dr. Bertram M. Bernheim, a distinguished physician of his day."

Dr. Bertram was very distinguished. He was a hematologist who performed an extensive number of blood transfusions, and according to most notes, the majority involved patients who survived long after the transfusion.

------------------------

The significance of these listed doctors is that they are used in an article that leans to the negative aspects, the fear shucking aspects of blood transfusions. This article fails to mention that both Georges Hayem and Bertram Bernheim remained hematologists who advocated blood transfusions before they became the industry standard. Franz Gesellius wrote in depth on blood transfusions in an unbiased manner that lead to the continuation of human-to-human blood transfusions in the coming world wars.

At the head of the article is a quote from Dr. Jeffrey McCullough that reads "If red blood cells were a new drug today, it would be very difficult to get them licensed." In the year 2000, it'd have been difficult to locate Jeffrey McCullough. He is (and at the time of the article) a professor at the University of Minnesota. His quote, using his professional name of Dr. J. Jeffrey McCullough, was taken from an April 21, 1998 New York Times article on Bloodless Surgeries (when references by the Awake!, his name was modified and the NY Times is not credited for the source).

The article can be seen here: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/21/science/bloodless-surgery-gains-new-acceptance.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Jeffrey McCullough, after making this quote, continued his 49 year career in pathology, became the editor of the medical journal Transfusion, taught blood banking & transfusion medicine and clinical pathology (board certified in both), wrote and revised Transfusion Medicine (rev. 2004), and was accepted to the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council in 2005.
Despite his one quote, he has remained very much in the realm of blood transfusions and blood-based works to this very day.

----------

Why it is the Watchtower Society sees a need to misrepresent sources to this degree is beyond me. I was under the impression that though they can't be taxed, religions are still bound to journalistic integrity when writing reports. It is my hope that people will see this and comprehend how distorted the writings of the Organization really are, even when not "quoting" the scriptures.

And now... my gift to all readers who've ventured this far. My thanks to you:

In my search for information on blood transfusions as they related to the Watchtower Society, I found two websites of interest:

http://www.squidoo.com/blood-transfusions-controversy
This is an attempt to report on blood transfusions by a Jehovah's Witness without attaching the Watchtower name to it. If you notice, it is the same article provided on the Watchtower website, only reworded to avoid accusations of plagiarism, or most likely to attempt to present it as a personal "researched" opinion.

http://johnaster.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html
This is a blatant attempt to present the Watchtower article as personal opinion. It both rewords and plagiarizes the original article but the author has a surprising bit of information about it:
" This is an argument essay I wrote at Sinclair Community College English 111 a proud time in my life there were many classes I enjoyed but English Composition was great because I got encouragement as a writer and never got less than a B+ on any essay that first year. My favorite essay is this one because I defended a fundamental religious view to objective secular minds and it was accepted as a viable argumentwinning respect from those who differed in this opinion. Years of getting slammed in the face in the door to door ministry I found writing would get people to listen. this is an edited draft of that essay might not be the final one."

He "wrote" an essay and submitted it to a college teacher as his own work. He takes credit for the composition and "factual" information presented. And he is proud of it.

Watchtower:
"in 1873, F. Gesellius, a Polish doctor, slowed the transfusion revival with a frightening discovery: More than half the transfusions performed had ended in death"

John Aster:
"In 1873, F. Gesellius discovered over half of all blood transfusions ended in death. In 1878, Georges Hayem perfected a saline solution blood substitue called Hayem's Solution that did not make blood clots, had no strange side effects and was easily transportable."

You will notice his next point of reference is Georges Hayem, which was the Watchtower's next point of reference. What fact comes next in the Watchtower article? Let's ask John Aster what HIS next sentence is: "But in 1900 Karl Landsteiner discovered certain blood types existed and could not be mixed."

That's correct! That's exactly what came next in the Watchtower's version.

Seriously guys and gals, for all of our rambling and ranting of the mindlessness of the Rank and File Witnesses, the John Aster blog dated June 2009 is the proverbial "proof in the pudding."

A late Christmas/Birthday gift to you all.

~Ryan Kent

5

Irony, thy name is Watchtower

by finally awake in

jw
friends

(ecclesiastes 12:12) .

.as regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning: to the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion [to them] is wearisome to the flesh.. .

i never could keep up with all the reading - lol.

arko_n9ne

cognitive dissonance is giving people too much credit. people are gullable and ignorant. they strive to go the simple route and enjoy having people do their work for them.

the wts made a flimsy show of having done all the work so people flocked to them regardless of contradictions and fallacies.

they stay with the wts because it means having to do the work of reconciling their mistakes in faith and then doing the work of getting it right the next time.

most witnesses that leave tend to become atheists. its okay to be atheist but be it for all the right reasons. no offense to current exjw atheists on here as i dont know your individual reason for giving up god. but you cant deny there are some who are atheist because its easier.

5

Irony, thy name is Watchtower

by finally awake in

jw
friends

(ecclesiastes 12:12) .

.as regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning: to the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion [to them] is wearisome to the flesh.. .

i never could keep up with all the reading - lol.

arko_n9ne

makes you wonder if the wts ever really read the bible...

202

I don't believe the Bible is Inspired of god - Why do you / don't you?

by cantleave in

many of you may know that i was brought up a witness and stayed in until the age of 42, even reaching the dizzy heights of being a congregation elder.

i was unusual in that, even as a witness i studied to degree level, on a part time basis, sponsored by my employer.

my first was in chemistry and my masters is in business administration.

arko_n9ne

the ancient assyrians practiced ashurism. ashur was their god who was feuding with the god of babylon. sounds familiar.

especially when you learn that ashurism evolved into the modern understanding of judaism.

the stories of the abrahamic bible are parallels to stories in ashurism. there is no originality in the old testament.

babylon was the antagonist pre semitic. babylon was the antagonist from moses forward. when babylon fell it remained the antagonist of the story in spiritual form.

10

Another Point Against Disfellowshipping (Even the WT can't deny)

by arko_n9ne in

i have been shifting some ideas around and the threat of disfellowshipping may actually help me in this instance.

if you've read my other posts, you know why it is i'm on here.

and you know that i am adamant.. but in the research of disfellowship, i've tried thinking of good, alternate arguments or points of reasoning before pressing the red button.

arko_n9ne

I have been shifting some ideas around and the threat of disfellowshipping may actually help me in this instance. If you've read my other posts, you know why it is I'm on here. And you know that I am adamant.

But in the research of disfellowship, I've tried thinking of good, alternate arguments or points of reasoning before pressing the red button. I saw on another post called 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway by IamPresence2012:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/220669/1/11-Things-The-Bible-Bans-But-You-Do-Anyway

As I read them, it made me energetic to know that more than 5 million or more of the R&F JWs probably do most of these on any given day. But my common sense hit me and the argument came clear "When Jesus set up the new covenant, the new law, he did away with the old." It got me thinking hard because I know that Jesus doesn't directly deal with the 10 Commandments, so I had to research them. The first that came to mind was "thou shall not kill (murder)."

Jesus didn't deal with killing, but he spoke of murder. But his sense of what made a person a murderer was broader than most.

1 John 3:15 (NIV) "Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
1 John 3:15 (NWT)(So we know it's not a miscommunication) "Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and you no that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him."

In the book What Does The Bible Really Teach, Chapter 13, Paragraph 6:

"Having respect for life includes having the right view of fellow humans. The Bible says: 'Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and you know that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him.' (1 John 3:15) If we want everlasting life, we need to root out of our heart any hatred for our fellowman, because hatred is the root cause of most violence."

The Watchtower page for this article is listed here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_13.htm (for any who feel I may have misquoted or misspelled something for my own gains).

Jesus spoke again on hating a brother in 1 John 4:20: (NWT) "If anyone makes the statement 'I love God,' and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen."

And again in Matthew 5:44 (NWT): "However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU.

Clearly, in the new law with the new covenant, Jesus wants us to love one another, going so far as to call it murder for even being contemptuous toward each other. In the April 15 2012 Watchtower, as it's been referenced, page 12 I believe, where is the love? They are instructing many to bring misery, shame, and loneliness to their "fellowman." To cast away and view their brother with disdain.

We are all aware (and if not, welcome to the war) of the November 1993 Watchtower that states: "True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they 'feel a loathing' toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance." (thanks jwfacts)

Or the 1992 July Watchtower that states: "The obligation to hate lawlessness also applies to all activity by apostates. Our attitude toward apostates should be that of David, who declared: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you." (again, thanks jwfacts)

Where is this Christian love we hear so much about? When one chooses to leave the congregation, or is forced out, why does this Christian love that Jesus spoke so much not appear in Jehovah's spirit-driven Organization? Why do they go against the decree of Jesus (who spoke for God) to love your enemy and pray for them?

Even if they do wrong to you (expose for fallacies, misquotes, inaccuracies, etc.), love them. Even if they condemn your God (a handful of old men in Brooklyn), pray for them. Even if they question your beliefs (with evidence starting from the mid to late 1800's, and find contradictory statements made a year apart as recent as 2009), do good to them.

Yet none of this happens. Encouraged hate and loathing. Encouraged pyschological abuse toward dissenters. But no agape (a word every JW was using in 2009).

11

Was Judas set up?

by highdose in

the bible profecied that judas (although not named) would betray jesus.

the bible also says i think that it was the devil or gods bad spirt that enter judas and caused him to do what he did?

if judas hadn't then there would have been no betrayal and no sacrifice therefore.

arko_n9ne

most christians who refute the secular world will tell you that the devil going inside judas isnt literal. it meant that he was evil and they will tell you by that point judas had already betrayed jesus so it didnt matter if the devil possessed him by then.

i call shenanigans.

judas was indeed prophecied to be the one to turn in the messiah. his fate was written almost a thousand years before his father had that twinkle in his eye toward momma iscariot.

jesus filled the prophecies about the messiah supposedly yet everyone believed him driven by god. why is jesus the only prophetic entity that cannot be held accountable for his actions on earth.

we are told we have free will. every man is born with the ability to choose. i understood the significance of jesus being poured into flesh was that he was a man. a man bound by gods law with vulnerability. yet he was still chosen as special among us.

remember that when someone tells you god loved you more than jesus.

2

11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway,,

by IamPresence2012 in

round haircuts.

see you in hell, beatles... and/or kids with bowl cuts, surfer cuts or (my favorite) butt cuts.

"seems like a lifetime of exile is a pretty harsh penalty for talking to zoltar.. 4. pulling out.the bible doesn't get too much into birth control... it's clearly pro-populating but, back when it was written, no one really anticipated the condom or the sponge, so those don't get specific bans.

arko_n9ne

illegitimate birth biblically carries alot. it is also children born out of wedlock. so my older brother went to hell when he died. he was born out of wedlock and a bastard. my wife and her siblings didnt know their father because her mother liked to sleep around when they were young. my sister in laws daughter was both out of wedlock and without a father.

how many from the statement of illegitimate birth do you think are forbidden from entering the church

arko_n9ne

Posts by arko_n9ne