the announcement of bill bowen's disfellowshiping was made--but a bit prematurely.
the story is in the paducah sun at:.
http://www.paducahsun.com/ .
Good work, Bill! Don't let them get away with their lies. Show them to be liers and hope that the world takes notice and the molestation stops.
Groundless accusations indeed!!! What a croc! I only wish the reporter was informed enough to know to ask the follow-up question, but your letter to the editor will get the truth out (if they print it).
.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
Just to prove that my request of BLEEP is not unreasonable, I am going to answer my own questions to BLEEP and time the process:
ANSWER (1) Here is a quick non-complete list of resources that are either about cults and not about JWs. This is only a list of books I have read, and does not include other useful texts on the subject.
Next are about JWs specifically (so that I can compare their social factors against the indicators for cults mentioned in the above texts).
Next are the words of JWs themselves, to get their side of the story:
The following are not directly about cults, but rather about general reasoning and useful background information:
Websites:
Fallacies -- The Nizkor Project, a summary of fallacies in "logic"
FlimFlam.com -- Exposing fraud, confidence games, scams, rip-offs, swindles, rackets, shell games, deceptions and flimflam
Field Guide to Critical Thinking -- from CSICOP
History of doomsday predictions
Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible -- by Joseph Francis Alward
Science and Creationism -- A View from the National Academy of Sciences
Research on the Watchtower -- Just what it says...
Watchtower Information Service
WatchtowerNews.org -- Newswire on JWs
Time check: 21 minutes since I started posting, and the longest thing is now behind me.
ANSWER (2):
I define a cult by the way it behaves toward its members. I DO NOT define it interms of what it believes and it's opinion of non-members. A finding of "cult" is not like a finding of "pregnancy". Pregnancy is a binary situation: either you are pregnant, or you are not. You can not be "a little bit pregnant". But a group can be "a little bit cult-like". It is a spectrum, with harmless groups at one end of the scale (i.e. "non-cults") and dangerous and destructive cults at the other end (Branch Davidians, Moonies, Heaven's Gate, etc.). The question should not be "is this groupd a cult" but rather "where on the scale is this group? Which end of the scale are they closer to?"
The factors which I use when analysing where a group falls on the "cult scale" are it's attitude to member's, their ability (or lack) to make their own decisions about things, their ability to think for themselves (or not). I could go on, but I won't: if you want to learn more, I suggest reading Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan which talks about The Moonies, not abou JWs
Time check: 28 minutes!
Answer (3)
People often say this only because they hear other people saying it. I feel it is important to learn about what defines a cult (see answer 2 above) before repeating that "Cult" label like a parrot. Having said that, I feel that the groups used as examples in this question do indeed fit the categorization of "cult" to some degree or another and I would put them at the "very cultish" end of the scale.
Answer (4)
Very carefully. If the person has been told that any who oppose their group are dangerous and devilish, my reaction could cause the relative to shun me, despite my sincere efforts to help them. I believe in LOVE combined with CAREFUL STUDY OF BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE will either (a) lead me to conclude that I was wrong, they are not in a cult OR (b) reaffirm my resolve to rescue my friend/relative from the dangerous situation they are in
Time check: 33 minutes
Answer (5)
I understand that this board isn't necessarily biased, since anyone if free to post here. If there is any bias, one way or another, it is a result of the proofs and arguments presented, not due to any deliberate bias from the proprietor (Simon).
Answer (6)
I have not counted time since the early 1990s. I think that anyone who counts time spent on this website on their monthly reports is being dishonest with their congregation. I don't know how such a person could sleep at night.
Answer (7)
IMHO, the principle of Free Speech does not extend within the JW congregation. JWs are not free to openly express their opinions if those opinions are different from the "officially provided opinion" (also known as "present truth"). It is ironic that a group that has used "Free Speech" constitutional arguments to protect their ability to knock on doors does not permit free speech within its own group.
Answer (8)
I personally was tried for apostasy when I expressed an opinion which was not in agreement with "present truth". I was NOT convicted of apostasy, but only because I terminated my relationship before the conclusion of the "trial" . I know of many, many others who have had the same experience. My JW mother was investigated by a Judical Committee when she expressed an opinion that was not in line with "present truth". That slap on the wrist worked, she recanted and is still a JW.
Answer (9)
I have spent at least 90 minutes at the Nizkor site. I wish I had time to study it enough to memorize it. It is like a lesson it "bull-crap detection".
Final time check: 41 minutes (and most of that was compiling the list in Answer (1)... also, I tend to be wordy).
I suspect that BLEEP can beat my record. Come on BLEEP your turn.
Edited by - Quotes on 16 August 2002 15:52:11
Edited by - Quotes on 16 August 2002 15:53:50
Edited by - Quotes on 16 August 2002 15:55:0
.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
BLEEP: PLEASE READ MY POST HERE CAREFULLY AND FULLY BEFORE REPLYING. YOUR CREDIBILITY WITHIN THIS FORUM MAY DEPEND ON IT.
BLEEP, now you are starting to act in a way which I do not understand, and I suspect others will feel the same way. Here is what I mean by that:
When I joined this discussion, this otherwise interesting thread had deteriorated. It appeared to me that your opinion was in the minority, it also appeared (to me, and others) that you had not directly answered questions and calls for proof about some of your more controversial statements.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assumed that this may have been a simple case of miscommunication, to wit: you felt you had responded to a particular query, but the person asking the question was unable to see how/where. In other words, it was difficult to match up your answers with others questions.
In an effort to make it a bit easier for all parties involved, I attempted to come up with specific questions which I felt would allow us to start over and really discuss this subject intelligently. To make it easy for everybody to follow, I used a NUMBERED LIST, and requested that you use the same NUMBERED LIST when posting your responses to my queries.
I did NOT ask you to answer them all at once, nor did I ask you to answer them in any particular order. I simply asked you to:
(a) answer them and
(b) use the numbering system when answering so there would be no confusion and no miscommunication (in other words, so we know which answer goes with which question)
You indicated that you needed time to "think about" your answers, which I felt was unusual becase:
(a) I only asked NINE questions and
(b) they asked for YOUR OPINION and YOUR KNOWLEDGE on the subject, a subject for which you had already posted your opinion. I thought it unusual that someone would have to think about, and perhaps research, their own opinion.
(c) some of the questions required only a YES or NO and would take SECONDS to answer
Now you have come back with two of your own lists of numbered questions -- actually two seperate lists, one with 22 questions and one with 25 questions. The lists contain different questions so now there are THREE LISTS of questions, with duplicate numbers (in other words, there is no way to know if an answer posted to, for example, question 1, is meant for LIST 1, LIST 2, or LIST 3. Whether you intended to or not, the net result of this action will FURTHER INCREASE miscommunication, and I now I must ask myself if increase in confusion was deliberatley intended by you, or simply the the by-product of otherwise well intentioned efforts.
Also, your lists are perplexing because you seem to have compiled questions that
(a) you have asked others
(b) others have asked you
(c) I asked you in the original list of 9 questions.
If these two new lists of questions were meant for you to answer, why did you include questions that you asked? Why ask your own questions? Don't you already know your opinion on those topics?
If these two new lists were meant for others to answer, why did you (partially) include questions (from my original ist of NINE questions) which I specifically directed toward YOU? It is YOUR OPNION/KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE/PROOF that seems to be in question, and answering my original list of nine questions could go a long way to clarifying YOUR OPNION/KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE/PROOF on this current thread topic of CULTS. My questions were meant for you! I would have emailed them to you, but you have chosen to LOCK your email address in this forum, so that was not possible.
So, despite my sincere (and time consuming for me!) attempts to clarify your OPNION/KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE/PROOF on the subject of cults, we are so far not getting anywhere. I ask you again to make an effort to clarify your OPNION/KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE/PROOF on this subject by answering the following questions:
(1) Please list the names of books, periodicals, websites, etc. that you have studied as part of your information gathering to learn about cults.
(2) What do YOU think defines a cult? I mean, a lot of people call different groups "cults" but they each have their own reasons, either correct (i.e. generally accepted reasons) or incorrect (i.e. not generally accepted reasons). So how do YOU define a cult?
ANSWER (2) PROVIDED:
(2) A cult would have the interests of the followers last since they would be doing dishonest things. They would be a group to put down the JW's and taking a lot of time pulling out hair since they can't find a real legal way to make them stop preaching, ha-ha. They would be more than just frowned upon for making a decision by themselves.
(3) Why is it people say "Reverend Jim Jones was a cult leader" or "David Koresh was a cult leader" or "The Branch Davidians is a cult"? What do you think it is about these groups that makes them a "cult" in the opinion of most people?
(4) How would you react to and deal with a close family member who joined, lets say, The Unification Church (a.k.a. The Moonies)? What would you say to that person (if anything)? What if they were quitting their job, or leaving their wife/husband/family, in order to persue The Moonies more intently? What would you do and/or say?
(5) You have posted previously that, in effect, you feel that people are misled by this website, as if it has a mind or agenda of it's own. Do you recognize that this website is only a collection of the postings of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, like you and me, that are not related to and not controlled by this website in any way? Do you understand that if you see something posted by someone that you don't agree with, you may post your opinion/correction? Do you understand that in order for this to be more educational and meaningful, counter-posts should be very specific and include proof? In other words, it is insufficient for me to post "The moon is made of green cheese" -- I would have to prove it! And if I ignored that requirement for proof, and subsequent requests for proof from other posters, I would probably not win over ANYONE to my opnion with respect to the lunar cheese composition. Do you understand this basic principle of discussion boards like this one?
(6) Do you count the time you spend here as "preaching" on your month-end Publishers Report?
(7) How extensive is your right to free speech? If you felt that you were personally in disagreement about some bible t teaching, (for example, if you recognized that the temple was NOT destroy in 607 BCE but rather in circa 587 BCE, would you have the right to free speech to discuss your opinion and the proof you have for your opinion with the Brothers and Sisters? What do you think about this?
ANSWER (7) PROVIDED:
(7) A simple letter to the Source would be a good choice in regards to your question of God's Temple. Write a letter to the Watchtower Society. If that does nothing then you will have to keep it to yourself or try to convince them otherwise that it is true!
(8) (NOTE: question (8) was generated due to answer (7)) Were you aware that people are expelled as apostates for doing what you have suggested: "trying to convince them otherwise".
(9) Have you spent any time at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies? This website has nothing to do with JWs or Apostates, but is a very interesting collection of Logical Fallacies, in other words, the mistakes people sometimes make in logic when trying to make a point about something. My first post in this thread referred to this site several times. Have you visited the site yet?
BLEEP Q & A Tabulation:
(1) -not answered yet (2) Answered (3) -not answered yet (4) -not answered yet (5) -not answered yet (6) -not answered yet (7) ANSWERED (8) -not answered yet (9) -not answered yet
We are all awaiting your responses.
~Quotes
take this test...what is your true talent?.
http://64.4.18.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=en&lah=4fc5b5279291b13ceb8e96988627c431&lat=1029459166&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eemode%2ecom%2feredir%3fm%3d159813129%26u%3d52749.
your true talent is abstract reasoning .
My true talent is avoiding spending (wasting?) time on "tests" which purport to tell me about "me", a topic with which I am already familiar.
this may be a silly question, but i thought someone would know the answer.
can the panorama video be transferred to a cd?
i have a cd writer on my computer...........dvd too.
Mulan,
Actually, it depends on exactly what you want the end result to be.
If you already have the program(s) as video files on your computer (e.g. .WMF, .WMV, .RA, .RAM, etc.) you can simply burn a back-up copy of the file. PRO: fairly easy and stright forward CON: can only be used on computers.
If you want to have a disc you can take to your DVD player in your entertainment center, you may be able to, depending on your hardware & software. Although you have a DVD drive in your computer, if it is not specifically a DVD writer (DVD+R, or DVD-R) then you can not make DVDs. All is not lost, however. There is a little known format called "VCD" (Video CD) which ALL DVD players support. This format has not much exposure in North America, but in Europe and Asia it has dominated the market for several years.
A VCD, like a DVD, must have very specifically named files on the disc in order for the DVD player (or VCD player) to be able to play it. Your VCD burning software takes care of this (NERO is one popular piece of CD burning software for this).
A VCD has the following differences from a DVD:
(1) VCD uses MPEG-1 compression, DVD uses MPEG-2 compression algorithm
(2) as a result of (1), picture quality on a VCD is a bit worse than VHS VCR, whereas DVD is, well... you've see it... much better than VHS
(3) A VCD holds about 680MB and can be on a standard CD-R or CD-RW disk which cost less that $1 each. A DVD holds over 4GB of information, but blank DVD media costs about $10 per disc.
(4) As a result of (3) a VCD will hold about one hour of video, but a DVD will hold 6 hours of video
Now before you go and get some CD burning software that can create VCD, you should be aware of one other thing: some DVD players have trouble reading VCDs that were made using CD-R or CD-RW discs. Sometimes using a different brand of CD-R disc will yield better results, but not always. If your DVD player specifically mentions the feature "CD-R or CD-RW compatible" you may end up with a VCD that you can't play in your DVD player, not because it doesn't like VCDs, but rather because it simply can't read the CD-R disc.
Hope that helps!
~Quotes.
http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/
Edited by - Quotes on 16 August 2002 0:36:38
.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
OK, BLEEP has (at least, nominally) responded to another question, specifically Quetion (2).
To recapitulate, the question was:
(2) What do YOU think defines a cult? I mean, a lot of people call different groups "cults" but they each have their own reasons, either correct (i.e. generally accepted reasons) or incorrect (i.e. not generally accepted reasons). So how do YOU define a cult?
The answer from BLEEP is:
Quotes, 2) A cult would have the interests of the followers last since they would be doing dishonest things. They would be a group to put down the JW's and taking a lot of time pulling out hair since they can't find a real legal way to make them stop preaching, ha-ha. They would be more than just frowned upon for making a decision by themselves.
Please keep in mind that I am only matching up Question Numbers with Answer Numbers.
Q & A Tabulation:
(1) -not answered yet
(2) Answered
(3) -not answered yet
(4) -not answered yet
(5) -not answered yet
(6) -not answered yet
(7) ANSWERED (I think).
(8) -not answered yet
(9) -not answered yet
BLEEP, note that there are CLEARLY NINE (9) questions. Why did you say "I will answer your 15 questions when I have time." -- Where did the other 6 questions come from?
.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
You may be right Europe, but I hope you are not. In another thread, where I reminded BLEEP that he has yet to respond to my questions, he/she promised me that he/she would after he/she had time to "think about them"
Only time will tell.
So far, only one question (number 7) has been answered, and the answer contained a suggestion for behavior which would clearly land a person in front of a Judicial Committe answering a charge of APOSTASY.
To BLEEP: "Come out, come out, whereever you are!"
.
this will take a minute to load ... depending on you connection speed.
i think the witnesses should see this..
Not to nit-pick, but since the JWs will nit-pick, I would like to pre-empt them:
Shouldn't it say INNOCENCE LOST (rather than Innocents lost)???
i'm in california and just tuned in to cnn @ 8:00 and there was 1/2 hour of connie chung about kidnapped kids, but nothing about bill bowen, the two girls, or the wts.
anyone know what happened?
patedited by - patio34 on 14 august 2002 23:45:2.
Just a guess, but I think the late version is truncated to half hour. It happened here too: Bowen was on the early edition, but absent from the late edition.
vivamus' post reminded me of some of my shunning experiences and one i had recently.
twice i have been doing yard work in the front of my house and my "annointed" jw mother and her car group have pulled up and parked right there in front of my house.
they get out, dressed up, bookbags, literature.
Verbal assault doesn't open a closed or brain washed mind. Kindness and questions do.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
