Perry

Joined

• started 287 topics
• posted 5,495 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Perry

• 
  21

  Did The Generation Change Silence Apostates?

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is a paragraph from the1997 august 1st.watchtower re the generation change:.

  "recently, 'the faithful and discreet slave' has helped us to refine our understanding of the term 'generation' used at matthew 24:34 and of the timing of the judgment of 'the sheep' and 'the goats' mentioned at matthew 25:31-46, as well as of our view toward certain types of civilian service.

  no doubt some apostates would have been delighted if many of jehovah's witnesses had stuck rigidly to the previous understanding of such subjects and refused to progress.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  The manipulation is totally laughable. If it wasn't for the personal costs that I have paid for my participation, I'd be ROTFLMAO!
• 
  70

  Religiously inclined are Mentally Ill

  by gravedancer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i raised this briefly in chat earlier today and i expect a similar response to this thread.. my opinion is that if you are religious/spiritual then you are mentally ill.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  It is so sad to see someone throw all their reasonablness on the altar of their ideological salesmanagers to the glory of the god of "something from nothing", and then try to justify that position by villifying anothers' position, as if that would be proof of the validity of his own.

  It is so obvious, gravedancer, that your anger (justified) at the WBTS has seriously left you wide open to having marketers of other ideologies do a brain scrambling number on you once again.

  It appears that you have believed the lie that only ideologies based on athiesm are not oppressive, they are not religous by nature, and that the idea of total freedom can be attained.

  People like to push the total freedom carrot to anesthesize their victims so that their own agenda can be pursued with as little resistance as possible.

  One country's history books calls a certain group of people rebels, another country's books call the same group freedom fighters. Obviously some government must rule...so the real issue is which one is more beneficial and not the arbitrary characterizations the spin doctors assign.

  You appear to be deep under the spell of the spinners of your own accepted ideology. The truth of the matter is that you are not free all. You are regurgitating the old party line..."religion is the opiate of the masses". Although the particular ideology (religion) that used that slogan has been throughly discredited, the same slogan is carried under different banners now.

  IMHO, the only freedom that does actually exist for humans is the freedom to choose an ideology (religion) to live by. I discussed this in detail at this thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=22556&site=3
• 
  32

  No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

  by Perry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since every culture ever studied has been shown to possess religious practices aka.

  spirituality, the axiom: "culture doesn't exist apart from religion" would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional.

  i have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  TeeJay,

  Good points. Abuses in either camp will result in loss of freedom.

  However, I see a far greater level of honesty in the educated Theist. They admit to not being able prove God's existence and also admit that their particular thought construct and its subsequent policies, standards etc. are a religion. They believe that it is beneficial to families and society.

  On the otherhand, almost all athiests try to deny that their position requires any faith, with the convient result of not needing to scientifically substantiate the "something from nothing" or "infinite digression" precepts. Then, they go on to build huge ideologies like marxism and secular humanism and try to fly under the constitutional radar by saying "we're not a religion".

  That is nothing more than unethical marketing just like the WBTS does. Furthermore, those that believe the sales pitch, must live a life of delusion to the political benefit of their masters.

  I am not so easily inclined to give away my freedom again after having been through the WBTS ordeal.
• 
  70

  Religiously inclined are Mentally Ill

  by gravedancer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i raised this briefly in chat earlier today and i expect a similar response to this thread.. my opinion is that if you are religious/spiritual then you are mentally ill.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Their are many statements that touch on a philosophy that has bugged me for years since leaving the WBTS. And that is the question of hypocricy. I'll try to put it as simply as possible.

  I believe it to be the height of all absurdity and delusional ignorance to believe that the absence of a formal religion somehow frees oneself from the effects of hypocricy. Allow me to explain.

  The underlying tenet of many people's personal philosophy and which others seem to so haphazardly adopt in a post JW life is this : "I'm not a hypocrit because I don't allow others to enforce their codes on me anymore. I'm free."

  I've got some sad news. The only way a person can be totally hypocrit free is to have a total lack of personal standards. While I concede some people may have achieved this, they are most likely to be locked up by society. A total standard-free life is impossible and yet survive in a free societal context. A person will at times find themselves violating the very standards they accept, even if it's just running a red light or speeding.

  Functionally, guilt over personal violations are absolutely critical to building character, which accomplishes on the inside of a person what societ's laws must enforce on the outside. To me this is the purpose of religion, ethics, or what evey you choose to follow that you believe to be bigger than yourself.

  Just because some people want to pervert religion, govt. or ethics doesn't mean we have to abandon to entire concept of standards; which for many are embodied in Karma, Jesus, or Buddah.

  That way a person can live by an internal gyroscope as opposed to determining whether an action is "good" based on the likehood of getting caught and/or punished. Character is a far better way to live and is much less taxing on society.

  Valis said:

  those who can't live without a spiritual presence share the same kind of abberant behaviour. The creation of guilt where there should be none, the compulsion to control and direct the lives of others, are all signs of missing a few marbles at least.

  
  Valis' comment above seems to indicate that guilt is bad. I agree, unless it is your own....then it's a good thing. I do not agree that it has anything to do with aberrant behavior at all, but rather a sign of character and responsibility to something other than to just yourself.

  gravedancer said:

  That is why I answer that anyone who puts their life on hold or lives for some belief system (instead of themselves) is unbalanced mentally.

  
  Likewise, gravedancers' comment above seems to make the utterly incredible assumption that any standard of belief other than that which is personally beneficial is akin to mental illness and tantamount to putting your life on hold. This is just pure fantasy. It is appealing to westerners because of our individualistic values but in practicality just another delusion.

  I believe such assertions are nothing more than unethical propaganda for a philosophical agenda; and if accepted become delusions. Therefore, if delusions are a key indicator of mental illness, then the axiom; "I have no standards therefore I am not a hypocric like the believers", is mental illness, or simply a childish attempt to shirk personal acountability.
• 
  70

  Religiously inclined are Mentally Ill

  by gravedancer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i raised this briefly in chat earlier today and i expect a similar response to this thread.. my opinion is that if you are religious/spiritual then you are mentally ill.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  The question specifically back to Perry is: what's your defintion of rabid?

  C'mon, you know what that means don't you? I'll break it down for you.... DOGmatism; no pun intended.
• 
  27

  Kind of Depressed, Looking for Someone to Talk to

  by Reborn2002 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some of you on this board know me, or at least part of my story, very likely most of you do not.. i am a 21 yr old male from chicago who finally mustered the courage to da myself roughly 6 months ago.

  being a 3rd-generation jw, my grandfather was an elder 45 years, so this developed a reputation and precedence for me that i would one day be a co.. or go to bethel.

  such high expectations, which i am happy i never fulfilled.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Dear Reborn,

  My girlfriend and I have been discussing your post. We are awed by your gumption.

  Allow me to digress. I raise parrots. One of the species is a Panama Amazon. They are normally very loving, and in the top two or three for talking ability and very rare. They are among my favorite species.

  One of the pairs is going to nest right now. And, the male is doing a good job of standing guard outside the nest box. As I walk down the isle he always leaves his perch and flies in a straight line to the cage wall directly at me. His chest is is out, his mission is pure (protecting his family), and he is willing to take on a 200lb 6ft+ giant regardless of the odds.

  Your post reminds me of that purity of purpose and virtue of character that I see in that Amazon. It is poetic and beautiful. Please do not doubt your decision no matter how painful the loss.

  Now, back to the reality of our species. We are of a much higher order than parrots, yet we have the same chemicals and enzymes pulsating through our bodies. That, together with our ideologies make our potential for personal diaster far more likely. The good news is that you can direct your course through intelligence. I am very concerned that at such a young age, you will be taken advantage of by those that wish to promote a selfish agenda. If you realize how vulnerable you are, you have already won half the battle. Please give this some thought.

  Many people have offered you what I believe to be genuine friendship here. Pleeeze take at least someone up on the offer. The biggest task you have right now is to get grounded. Do you understand? You must trust someone and through that relationship receive validation and honesty. A real friend will also disagree with you at times.

  I am a 4th generation JW and totally understand the hurdles you are facing. My advice is to get connected with people who have been there. Hold people accountable for their offer of friendship; and if they don't perform, dump them. You must take good care of yourself.

  I have a pretty high estimation of myself (don't we all :-) but, I could not have had the mental clarity to do what you did at your age. You must appreciate your uniqueness. Put forth the effort to establish new friendships now...on your terms.

  Your story has touched me deeply. Please feel free to e-mail me anytime at [email protected]
• 
  37

  Apostate Literature

  by YoYoMama in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is it possible after researching the net on jw beliefs, background and reading apostate information that a jw would still research the bible and find watchtower teachings as truth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Kent says:

  Of course it is. It's even possible for a whole nation to be so completely stupid they elect an asshole like Bush as president!

  I agree! Imagine the anguish when your president has to kiss it. :-)
• 
  23

  Has anyone circulated factsheet to local JW's?

  by Nowfree in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a group of exjws in the south of the uk are considering putting together a factsheet containing information about:.

  a) the wtbt involvement with united nations, .

  b)the lies told by the wtbts to the court in the case of jehovah's witnesses v bulgaria in the european court of human rights.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  I agree with JT and Seeker. However, if a JW happened to come upon a flyer in a laundry mat, grocery bulletin board, newspaper ad, or TV story, the source would be much less an issue and the information would be far more likely considered.
• 
  32

  No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

  by Perry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since every culture ever studied has been shown to possess religious practices aka.

  spirituality, the axiom: "culture doesn't exist apart from religion" would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional.

  i have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Abaddon,

  Excellent reply. It is this kind of honest inquiry that makes post JW life so wonderful.

  I like many of your views, disagree with some, and feel that you missed my point and we are in agreement with other observations. I'll address them one at a time.

  Perry; I have to say I think you are begging the question a bit;Mmmm, not difficult to see where you're coming from... but anyway;

  I have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.

  Are you suggesting I'm an apologist for deism? I'm against all forms of unethical ideological influences. Ones that are based on deceit, craftiness, ignorance and especially unfairness. Call a spade a spade and bring it out in the light for examination, that is what I like to see.

  Whether a person subscribes to theism or atheism is irrelevant to the fact that those positions rarely exist in a vacuum.

  I was actually musing the other day about how I dislike the word atheism, as it defines people by something they don't believe exists.

  You get my vote on the dignity, self-worth, and self-realization part for sure. However, I'd argue that the term athiest does indeed imply belief. If there was no "First Cause" then what exactly brought us into existence? Unless I'm missing something here, the only alternative beliefs are (1) an infinite digression of cause and effect events or, (2) something from nothing. Each of those views require faith since it cannot be scietifically demonstrated or duplicated.

  I like the word 'humanist' ("a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values, especially a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason"

  I'd agrue as above that the humanist must accept supernaturalism since the answers on the question of origins all require faith because they are outside our experience in the natural world and the laboratory as well.

  As far as the Humanist religion goes respecting a "way of life centered on human interests or values", just whose interests and values is it centered on? The incredibly arrogant creeds in this religion that claim to speak for all mankind is truly breath-taking. This kind of "we know better because we're us" thinking is intellectually repulsive, repressive and unfair to other world views. In "The Humanist" Jan/Feb 1983 John J. Dunphy had this to say concerning the spreading of Humanist ideals:

  These [Humanist] teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundalmentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level. The classroom must and will becomean area of conflict between the old and the new - the roting corpse of christianity together with its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian idea of 'Love Thy Neighbor' will finally be achieved.
  Now to be fair, don't you think that athiestic Humanists should just be honest and say, "Hey, were a religion too, but you really ought to check this out!" Do they ? Oh no, they have chosen to march in the footsteps of the WBTS to the tune of "Religion is a Snare and a Racket." In my opinion, just pure religious fanaticism. If they were really all about ethicalness, they would be touting "equal teaching for equal worldviews".

  This is an interesting point;

  ... he/she has formulated the very essence and purpose of religion; and that is to make sense of and attempt to control the environment, at least for his/her self.

  You say that is the essence of religion, but it is also what science is about, really. You can also say it is what philosophy is about too. So I'm not sure what you're saying given what you say religion is about is also true of science and philosophy.

  Very simple, a defineable worldview.

  What I find so ethically shocking is when any construct of thought, whether based on deism or athiesm, presents itself as "fact", "truth" and ideologically "free" while at the same time pursues its own logical agenda as a consequence of such constructs.

  You have to accept that there is differentiation between constructs of thoughts and differentiation between consequnces of constructs of thought.

  Are you putting Jim Jones and David Koresh on a level playing field with other constructs of thought? Or ancient Aztec religions where one had to cut the heart out of prisioners of war to make the sun rise on the same playing field as Universal Unitarians or Quakers?

  I think there is clear differentiation between constructs of thought. I think there is clear differentiation between the concequences of these constructs.

  To escape this with a sentence implying to think such a thing is shocking is to hide from reality.

  Talk about a straw man argument! We are in complete argeement on the different consequences. So, why is it when I'm shocked, its hiding from reality and when your shocked, its somehow justified? Very strange thoughts you display here. Perhaps you could elaborate at a future time.

  My angst is directed toward those constructs of thought (world views)who choose to deceptively identify themselves otherwise for the purpose of painlessly injecting its ideologies into others, outside of the victims awareness. Kinda like what the WBTS did in Mexico as a "cultural organization".

  A theist, unless they have some pretty good proof, is just exercising their opinion, and that should start and stop with their own lives. I agree that theists trying to impose their opinions upon the world has generally been an unpleasent business for those imposed upon.

  
  Please reread your quote above and replace the word theist with the word athiest. This is the kind of intellectual masturbation that is ruining our educational institutions and producing "group think" on a massive scale. Fairness and ethicalness would demand that all major world views be taught....equally and fairly considered; and then the individual would be in a much better position to make informed choices.

  An atheist would be most unusal if they would expect their opinions to affect others' lives. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but what is more likely is that certain things a theist would NOT want to happen CAN happen, as opposed to forced conformity.

  Oh really? That is simply pure propaganda myth. It is so sad that people have actually been duped more than once after leaving the WBTS. Athiests have united under the banner of Secular Humanism and have brought about huge societal changes through the auspices of deceptively denying that they are a religion (that would blow their cover and the separation of church and state doctrine would end their educational influence), while they themselves certify "counselors" who enjoy the same legal status of priests, rabbis, and ministers. At least one Humanist was granted conscientous objector status before the supreme court on religious grounds. Yes, the Humanists want it both ways just like the WBTS.

  What better way to enforce conformity than to control the flow of information, hide your true nature, and train ministers to promote your agenda. That's what the Humanists wanted and did and that is what we experienced in the WBTS.

  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; you are not entilted to your own facts.

  I once saw a great quote: "People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones". Your glass house you have built in your mind doesn't fit the facts. However please correct me if any of my statements are untrue.

  It seems appropriate to state to you at this point that I actually like many of the Humanistic ideals. My issue is with its MO.

  This is where a major paradigm shift between theists and atheists takes place. A theist's facts or proofs are often of a subjective nature. An atheists are less likely to be subjective and more likely to be externally verifiable.

  Thus, to seek to argue that athiesm is a relgion, even if this has some semantic foundation, is a baseless arguement, as although there are some similarities, they are of such a superficial nature as to make comparison meaningless. Rabbits are a bit like giraffes, but this doesn't get you far in the study of either.

  Again, you missed my point. Athiesm is not a religion any more than theism is a religion. The thought constructs built upon each of those foundations become religious once the are released into society by trained evangelists, whether they choose to call themselves that are not.

  If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion.

  Based on the above this is a non sequiter.

  I disagree, but we'll each reader decide.

  However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.

  You are confusing religion with society, and also not recognising that religion is essentially old-time politics.

  Again, I challenge you to show me the society that is without religion? Your failure to do so is causing you to simply repeat yourself. Please get back to me when you can think of one.

  My contention is that just because we live in an information age and it is popular and political advantageous to call current ideologies something other than what they are, it does not negate the function of many ideologies as being essentially religious... even if it does operate outside the adherents awareness.

  It seems to me, that to critize the deist for formulating and participating in standards, policies, and community as being "mental illness" as promoted in an earlier thread, while at the same time accepting the athiests' standards, policies, and community to be ideology/religious free, is ignorance at best and hypocritical at worst

  This is a bit of a straw man arguement; I don't think theists desire to participate in soceity is seen as mad, and you are verging on saying this is what people have said.

  Where have you been living? Do you not get television in your glass house?

  Christians have seen their world view effectively eliminated in public schools, and are outraged at the Marxist and Humanists' violations of the present interpretation of the First Amendment. The Christians simply want equal consideration of worldviews. Humanists want total intellectual domination.

  The Humanists then add insult to injury by making the 192 million Christians bear the financial responsibility for such discrimination through their tax dollars. The 7.3 million Humanists finance their religion as a parasite on the larger society while the liberal media paints any objectors as religious fanatics and screwballs. Through their cunning and dishonesty, they have simply done a better job of marketing their agenda and have beat out their competitors in some arenas.

  The arguement that theists are mad is based upon the fact that in 200,000 years of human existence, and maybe 40,000 years of pre-history and 5,000 years of history, no one has ever proved the existence of god in the same way that one can demonstrate the existence of gravity and value of g with a tenth floor window, a tape measure, a brick and a stop-watch, and a few assistants.[/QUOTE]

  Total non-sense. Educated theists know that they cannot prove the existence of God but choose to believe anyway because of its perceived accrueing benefits. That is their choice....plain and simple, as well as their right.

  The opposite is also true. Educated athiests cannot deny that their take on origins require faith, but they choose to believe anyway. No big deal. What gets me steamed is when they close the information door in our classrooms and masquarade as "this is just the way it is".

  But I am glad that you brought up the subject of anger stemming from intellectual embarrassment. I have always wondered why uninformed athiests get so mad when you try to explain that "matter from nothing" or "an infinite digression of cause and effect events require faith. Could it be that they naively believe the propaganda from their Humanist and Marxist masters? What the hell is so wrong in just admitting, "I don't know"? Why must they spout the mantra, "we can prove anything" and then fail to follow up? How different is that from the Jehovah's Witnesses?

  Despite this absence of proof, the theist can and does sometimes expect the non theist OR THE DIFFERENTLY BELIEVING THEIST (a very big hole in your arguement) to do what they say, essentially because they say it, or someone once wrote down what someone else said.

  Again, simply replace the word theist with the word atheist and you'll see the invalidity of your argument.

  The bottom line is that a life not based on intellectual honesty, fairness, and examination is not worth living in my opinion. I guess you were once a JW, so I feel a natural kinship toward you and others here on this DB. After we have been through all that manipulation and survived, it would be a shame to simply be carried off victim by another indefensible position that masquarades as something else.

  If we choose a position and adhere to its constructs and are comfortable with it, why do we need to deny its existence if it works for us?

  Again, I have no problem with athiests. I even like the ideas of the humanists. The concept of greater control is appealing. But, all unethical MO's have got to go.

  Perhaps Gary Buss said it best in another thread:

  If I am secure in my understandings, there is absolutely no reason why I need to lobby anyone else to adopt my philosophy. I only need company for my insecurities, my weaknesses and my assumptions.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 
  70

  Religiously inclined are Mentally Ill

  by gravedancer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i raised this briefly in chat earlier today and i expect a similar response to this thread.. my opinion is that if you are religious/spiritual then you are mentally ill.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  gb wrote:

  If I am secure in my understandings, there is absolutely no reason why I need to lobby anyone else to adopt my philosophy. I only need company for my insecurities, my weaknesses and my assumptions.

  Excellent observation I believe to be true of any position. Will you also concede the rabid athiests are as insecure as the rabid theists?