David_Jay

Joined

• started 23 topics
• posted 874 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by David_Jay

• 
  133

  Why is the white race so different?

  by Crazyguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what i'm saying is the white race is the only one that has a verity of eye and hair colors , so what gives?

  is it that this race was influenced genetically by a group of pre humans that didn't mix with other races?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Why is the white race so different?

  This is a trick question, right? You have at least one Jew, myself, on this site, and someone is asking this kind of question.

  Oy vey! Goyim. Go figure.
• 
  32

  If Jesus had to choose his earthly organisation NOW, who would win?

  by stuckinarut2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we all know that the society claims that jesus invisibly chose the bible students (forerunners of jw) in 1919 to be his organization here on earth.. yet, as we know, so much of what they then taught and did was wrong according to current teaching and practice.. the reply witnesses will give is something like "they were the most sincere seekers of truth blah blah...and jesus could see their potential".

  so, pretend for a moment that the current organization and the 1919 organization were both in concurrent existence at the time he invisibly came to choose.... which would he choose?

  the current or former?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Jwleaks,

  Silly, North Korea IS the Watchtower Society. It's merely the North Korean branch.

  You have to pick again.
• 
  15

  If you had to start life again what employment would you choose?

  by Chook in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  we might have a fully functional community from this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  I have my dream job now, so count me out of this one. It's hard enough to get into my industry once, the chances being near to nothing that it would happen to me again.
• 
  32

  If Jesus had to choose his earthly organisation NOW, who would win?

  by stuckinarut2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we all know that the society claims that jesus invisibly chose the bible students (forerunners of jw) in 1919 to be his organization here on earth.. yet, as we know, so much of what they then taught and did was wrong according to current teaching and practice.. the reply witnesses will give is something like "they were the most sincere seekers of truth blah blah...and jesus could see their potential".

  so, pretend for a moment that the current organization and the 1919 organization were both in concurrent existence at the time he invisibly came to choose.... which would he choose?

  the current or former?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  I think this is one of the weirdest of all the Witnesses' teachings.

  1. There is destined to be one true religion.

  2. The religion would be picked by the Messiah in the early 1900s.

  3. The Messiah would do the picking from the afterlife in heaven.

  The following problems occur:

  1. The Messiah concept came from the Jewish religion.

  2. The Jewish religion was not chosen to be the true religion by Jesus.

  3. Therefore Jesus cannot be the Messiah, and in fact the Messiah concept must be false since it originated with a religion not chosen in 1919.

  4. The Governing Body claims not to be inspired of God.

  5. How does a group of men who are not inspired know who and when someone from the afterlife chooses a religion to be the right one?

  So if Jesus HAD to chose an earthly organization now (or at any time), the next thing I would ask is: Why?

  1. If this is a teaching of any particular religion prior to Jesus picking a religion as the right one, doesn't it make this requisite moot? It would already have to be the true religion to begin with to know about this requirement and future event.

  2. If Jesus doesn't pick the religion that makes this requirement mandatory, then this isn't something Jesus would ever do in the first place. This means that if Jesus would not pick that religion thus indicating that any of the others or all of the others are the right one (but would somehow prove the first one true since it was the wrong religion that taught the correct requisite), this would mean the true religion would have made a false statement of prediction making it false to begin with.

  3. So Jesus would have to pick the religious organization first and somehow mark it so people could see it was chosen by Jesus in 1919 (of whenever). So the religion would have to be the chosen one first before being the chosen one.

  4. The organization could claim the gift of prophecy in this case, but this would make the point of Jesus' picking them unnecessary.

  So if Jesus HAD to do this, and do it NOW, which organization would Jesus pick?

  It would be the one that knew in advance that Jesus was going to pick it through an invisible process before it happened and then have proof of the invisible picking once it occurred.

  The religion would somehow have to validate that Judaism was once correct and used by God to develop the Messiah concept in the first place, then present evidence that it had been rejected by God and was being replaced by this new group that was being chosen invisibly.

  But if it was being chosen invisibly, having proof that it was chosen invisibly would invalidate that it was chosen invisibly. If you had visible proof of an invisible choosing, then the choosing was not invisible and therefore invalid.

  So, in the end, the chosen true religion would have to provide invisible proof that it was invisibly chosen by Jesus (and that it was a true requisite that this was to happen when it did and how it did).

  The answer: Jehovah's Witnesses. They're the only religion to have come up with such a stupid teaching that it must be them. They win!
• 
  12

  What Is Brain Washing?

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i don't think this applies to the watchtower corporation as the beginning this is talking about the more extreme forms.

  but interesting just the same.

  i'm sure we see some of the wt's depictions of death and and destruction(verbal and in pictures) that awaits those not in corporate "jehovah's" favor, a clear uses of inducing maximum fear and stress to make the mind more suggestable to corporate directives.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  While there is no scientifically agreed upon definition, and even some debate if such a thing exists among academics, the general consensus is that "brain washing" is a means of forcing people to submit or assent to direction to change the thought processes which govern their behavior and exchange their previous convictions for a new set of views and behavior patterns.

  The "forcing" part is usually by means of threat, usually of pain/torture, even death. In exchange for being guaranteed that they will be spared from the threat, the subject submits their assent to the demands of the one in control.

  The assent usually involves a systematic education and training program in which the individual changes their way of thinking and acting, being educated in the discipline of fighting any threat to their new conditioning.

  "Brain washing" is considered complete when the subject follows the demands of the controller even when that party is no longer present or even dead. A person who is "brain washed" may not be able to function as normally as before even after deprogramming.

  Those academics which agree that the situation is real or at least possible often add that it takes an educational background in psychology to properly brain wash a subject. Others suggest some people may have learned to be manipulative enough of others to perform a similar type of "brain washing."

  Other experts disagree, focusing on the fact that assent of the subject is always required to some degree, and therefore at its core no one is actually "brain washed," merely willing to give up certain freedoms to avoid the threat placed upon them.

  In my humble opinion, the amount of personal assent is not the issue as much as the training that is designed to keep people from realizing the threat may not be real or that they can freely choose not to assent without suffering in some instances. When this occurs, when the threat is a lie and people are trained to fight doubt and the understanding that they can be free whenever they want, then I think "brain washing" is what we're looking at.

  But until it can be established by critical methods, "brain washing" is merely hypothetical and not theoretical (which it would need to be in order to be argued about in a court of law).
• 
  35

  Best Website in the world - JWORG

  by TheWonderofYou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jw believe that jworg is the best website and most translated in the world.. i heard this today in streetservice.

  there was already a thread about this subject.

  anybody can link it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  darkspilver wrote:

  ? Don't try to blame technology - the principle is that, if the catholics wanted it all on one website, one website could handle it - vis-a-vis youtube - but the catholics have decided not to.

  Another example of people who are ready to argue but not ready to read your comments and realize that they just agreed with you.

  I had already written:

  If it was a real need, believe me the Catholic Church would have the most efficient of all religious sites because of the money and political control they wield. And it would be effective at controlling the traffic of billions of visitors. Necessity is the mother of invention. The point is, however, that religions aren't in the business of building a better more widely used and more translated website than the other church.
• 
  35

  Best Website in the world - JWORG

  by TheWonderofYou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jw believe that jworg is the best website and most translated in the world.. i heard this today in streetservice.

  there was already a thread about this subject.

  anybody can link it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Darksilver,

  We're not talking whether it is possible for 1.2 billion Catholics to get all their information from one website or whether people discuss language. We're talking if this is a real issue of importance to begin with.

  If it was a real need, believe me the Catholic Church would have the most efficient of all religious sites because of the money and political control they wield. And it would be effective at controlling the traffic of billions of visitors. Necessity is the mother of invention.

  The point is, however, that religions aren't in the business of building a better more widely used and more translated website than the other church. That's not what religion is about.

  I was merely trying to show how this is a non-issue. You don't need a website to run a religion. Even if the JWs is the most translated or whatever, so? Without such a thing Catholics introduced (baptized) over 300,000 new adults into their church every month in 2013 according to CARA. The averages have increased since then.

  What good is translating a recipe for poisoning yourself and your family into every language? It's still a recipe to poison yourself.
• 
  35

  Best Website in the world - JWORG

  by TheWonderofYou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jw believe that jworg is the best website and most translated in the world.. i heard this today in streetservice.

  there was already a thread about this subject.

  anybody can link it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  All this "website" talk from the Jehovah's Witnesses is part of the "closed-world assumption" that permeates groups like the JWs and Mormons.

  While the term is now used in building the framework for computer systems, the terminology was borrowed from the way people often present facts as if everyone knows that a certain fact is true, or as in this particular case, important.

  How often do people outside of the Watchtower's influence discuss and even long for websites that are translated into a large number of languages? How often is the subject discussed when important issues arise?

  It's a non-issue. It only means something to the JWs because their website is now the central disseminating point of their nonsense. Nobody else cares.

  Recall when it used to be the printed publications that all the boasting was about? How often did they crow about how many Watchtower magazines were being printed and in how many countries and languages? Sounded impressive, but not a week went by in field service that I failed coming across at least one person who had never read, seen, or heard of The Watchtower magazine. The now-defunct Worldwide Church of God used the same self-praise with its membership regarding The Plain Truth magazine.

  But in real life, what did it matter? Who cared? Were you impressed by The Plain Truth's distribution numbers when Armstrong was alive? Did you know them? Did you even realized they existed? Do you even know that magazine existed?

  It's a cult tactic. If the JWs were using a dirty toilet as the means to distribute their nonsense, they would be boasting about how their dirty toilet gets used by more people around the world from more language groups than any other toilet.

  The fact of the matter is that religions generally don't use one single website to teach everything to all their members. First off, the religions of the world are too large. Can you imagine if you had all the Roman Catholics of the world downloading their Sunday Mass readings from one single website? How many language groups are we talking about? How many countries? How many non-Catholics attend Mass? And we're not mentioning RCIA classes, Cana marriage courses, catechism for children, etc., all coming from one, single website. Could one website handle the traffic of 1.2 billion plus people?

  The Catholic Church reaches everybody, everywhere, and did it before websites. It can still do all this without relying on websites. The same goes for other religions, Christian and non-Christian. Most have a plethora of websites per denomination, each serving a very specific need in a complex paradigm of networks within each. Religions are also multicultural and thus use different sites to meet the specific needs of various cultural and language groups.

  So all this JW talk about how great their single website is? It is a source of pride for those cult zombies, but no one else cares.
• 
  19

  Jerusalem's destruction.....

  by Unstuck in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all - so me and stuckinarut2 are at the state library proving to ourselves that wt has it all wrong re: 607. i've read at length jwfacts, jwsurvey and crisis of conscience that all go into the subject and i've just downloaded gentile times reconsidered.. while it is fabulous to have someone else compile all the research and evidence for you, it is quite another to see it in print for yourself - and so, here we are.. while we wait for our array of books i couldn't help but share with you how the state library has catalogued jewish history - 586 bc to 70 ad.

  no mention of 607 as a key date as far as the library's catalogue is concerned!!

  evidence before we have our books!!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Waton,

  We are both correct on where the origin of Nazi comes from.

  The term was adopted from the German word for "National Socialist" which is "Nationalsozialist." It was shortened to "Nazi" for short.

  But it was also a word already in use, originally meaning someone who came "directly from the land," originally a native but later a farmer and then later a "commoner." At times viewed as more of an insult by wealthier classes as the term "commoner" became a synonym for "peasant" as well, etymologically it came from the name "Ignatius," which means someone who was of Ashkenazi descent. The "natius" is merely a transliterated form of "nazi," the last part of the word.

  The term was somewhat of a "reclaiming" of what has become a derogatory term, such as when "queer" was adopted by some members of the LGBTQ community. For instance, the term "Queer Theology" is now common in the LGBTQ community to describe Christian theology that counters claims against homosexuality.

  I have not much to add to the other comments you make, as there is question whether Dan or any other of the "Ten Tribes" ever existed. They could be a myth. But I have heard similar crazy ideas from people, like Mormons and those who grasp the straws of Armstrongism.

  And I gather you are merely making reference in your last part of your comments about what is being read in the Jehovah's Witnesses religion programs, yes? I haven't been to a Kingdom Hall in about over 30 years, so I will have to take your word on what the Witnesses believe today on those matters. But it's interesting they are reading that right now.
• 
  19

  Jerusalem's destruction.....

  by Unstuck in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all - so me and stuckinarut2 are at the state library proving to ourselves that wt has it all wrong re: 607. i've read at length jwfacts, jwsurvey and crisis of conscience that all go into the subject and i've just downloaded gentile times reconsidered.. while it is fabulous to have someone else compile all the research and evidence for you, it is quite another to see it in print for yourself - and so, here we are.. while we wait for our array of books i couldn't help but share with you how the state library has catalogued jewish history - 586 bc to 70 ad.

  no mention of 607 as a key date as far as the library's catalogue is concerned!!

  evidence before we have our books!!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Anony Mous,

  Actually there was a Davidic dynasty, but you are right in that it wasn't composed of the propaganda-based legends you read about in our Jewish Scripture.

  There is doubt that there was a "King David" as described in Samuel and Kings. Jews regard these as legendary tales describing the government that centralized (or attempted to) the various peoples of the land which evolved into what we today call "the Jews." This dynasty of kings is responsible for making the worship of YHVH the state religion and setting up the Temple. While it is totally not impossible that there was such a person, it is doubtful the Biblical David or even a Ben David is at the foundation of this monarchy. Yet the dynasty given this name itself is not in doubt.

  The Jewish take on the stories of King David is that these compose a "political apology," a Jewish form of Christianity's "right of kings." These texts were an attempt to give the dynasty "heavenly authority" for ruiling, because in all likelihood, as you mentioned, the peoples of the Fertile Crescent were not unified, neither politically nor religiously.

  Like the American legends surrounding George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and the like, they are "wishful thinking," basically engendering the type of qualities the Hebrews wanted to see in their kings.

  Again while this doesn't rule out a possible historical "David," my personal lineage is to those rulers who were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar and placed in the "Sephardic" region whether King David is a real individual or not. It took 20 years, but my family's been traced back to even those Jewish Christian bishops before Kyrikos who were slaughtered by the Romans for being "of the House of David" (which is why there were 16 between 40-135 C.E., as all claimed to be relatives of Jesus of Nazareth).

  This also explains why many Jews, such as myself, do not accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Since "David" is likely a legendary figure, it seems less likely that the Messiah would be a literal individual too. "The Messiah" is seen as an era of peace personified as a perfect ruler like the legendary David by many Jews for this reason.