Still waiting for YouKnow to make his appearance and respond to the the two simple YES/NO questions on this topic (see my previous post in this thread).
You out there YouKnow?
Posts by Quotes
-
36Watchtower judges man on size of nose.!!
by avengers inwatch tower judges man on size of nose .
1921 "the size of the nose, as also the size of the eyes, is not without significance.
the small-nosed man cannot have a judicial mind, whatever his other excellencies may be.
-
-
-
72
A Cult
by Beans in.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
-
-
Quotes
Well, well well! Welcome back to the thread, BLEEP! I thought for sure you were not coming back! I was wrong, and I stand corrected!
Since you are back, please answer some questions related to this thread. In your response, so as to avoid confusion and claims to have "not answered the question" please use the same numbers to itemize your responses.
(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?
(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?
I am glad you are back, and although you have not addressed my previous posts, I am willing to repost this, in simple numbered list format, to make it easier for you to respond. I hope you do, and I eagerly await your response.
P.S. Some have commented on your possible age ("12 years old"), I think, due to your writing style; I have not. I don't know how old you are, and I don't know your educational background, but I have seen many "anti-JW" posters who write at, in my opinion, the same level you do, so don't feel too bad. Personally, I think all should be welcome here, and none should be ridiculed for either their youth, or their lack of education. However, when some one ignores posts and refuses to answer specific questions, they appear to have something to hide. Don't become that type of person.
Edited by - Quotes on 14 August 2002 15:52:22
Edited by - Quotes on 14 August 2002 15:53:30
-
25
Locating Their Achilles Heel
by metatron inevidence is growing that the society now recognizes the grave.
danger of holding on to the blood doctrine and is quickly trying.
to 'fade it to black'.. it is likely that most witnesses will passively go along with this.
-
-
Quotes
A little off-topic, but wrt:
It is likely that most Witnesses will passively go along with this
fraud and deny that they were ever required to avoid blood transfusion.My mother is already doing this (I don't know if it is more widespread, so this should be treated as anecdotal evidence). She said to me about 6 months ago "no one was ever disfellowshipped for accepting a blood transfusion."
Because she is my mother and I love her, I refrained from laughing in her face.. but it wasn't easy.
-
1
FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH JWS THIS YEAR!
by badboy inon saturday at about 11.20am , my mum informed me that a pair of male jws was coming, so i got ready.. anyway they knocked on the door and i opened it,introduced himself and his son(who looked thoroughly bored!
) and the usual about god eventually putting things to right,showed us the superstition/what has man learn from the past ?
magazines,also read eccles,8.v9(interestly the verse was on the left not on the right of the column(my 1981 edition has the verse on the right),said he would back in a few weeks.
-
-
Quotes
(At the risk of sounding like a pompous ass for blowing my own trumpet by mentioning my own website).
Take a look at http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com for some of the more unusual quotes published by the WTBTS over the years. Ask them if they can help you to understand why this of that was published. If they give you "that is a lie, you can't believe anything you find on the internet" implore them to show you the original book/magazine to proove that the quote is wrong. If they attempt this, they will find the quote accurate.
Watch as they run away, afraid of the implications of quotes from their own publishing house. If you are fortunate, your house will be "marked" as housing an "opposer/apostate" and they won't be back for a long, long time!
-
36
Watchtower judges man on size of nose.!!
by avengers inwatch tower judges man on size of nose .
1921 "the size of the nose, as also the size of the eyes, is not without significance.
the small-nosed man cannot have a judicial mind, whatever his other excellencies may be.
-
-
Quotes
Interesting post from YouKnow, which is true to form for him/her/it: IT COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.
YouKnow, does the fact that this quote was erroneously attributed to the GB when, in fact, the GB had yet to be formalized, change or reduce the impact of the statement?
Is that the best you can do?
Here are some YES/NO answerable questions for you, if you are brave enough. Please answer with either a YES OR NO. Feel free to qualify your answer, but start with either a YES or NO.
(1) Do you accept the JW doctrine that Jehovah has used the WTBTS as his "channel of communication to mankind to deliver his spiritual truths/ spiritual food" since 1919?
(2) Do you personally believe that the quoted Golden Age article from 1921 delivered "spiritual food" from Jehovah? In other words, was belief in Phrenology an important truth from Jehovah?
I have more questions, but they depend on your answers to the first two. Please respond. Thank you.
~Quotes
-
72
A Cult
by Beans in.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
-
-
Quotes
We've all heard the expression "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
The BLEEP version should be "If you can't stand the heat of being part of a logical argument, if the discussion seems to be totally flooding your opinion to the point that you don't have a leg to stand on, then get out of the thread and skip over to another thread. In that new thread, post the same tired, threadbare points which have already been exposed as fallacious, illogical, or lies, and hope no one notices the "hot thread" you just got out of. That way you can keep spreading misinformation.... whoops, I mean witnessing, and therefore keep counting your time goofing of on the internet in your monthly Publisher report"
To paraphrase Jimmy Durante, "Goodnight BLEEP, wherever you are."
-
72
A Cult
by Beans in.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
-
-
Quotes
It sure does!
Let me take the liberty of skipping forward in time about one thousand posts.
If we can ever get BLEEP to actually discuss the issues rather than the hit-and-run, duck-and-cover style posts he has provided thus far, we will get to the point where he says:
"Yes, it does appear that JWs fit the definition of being a cult in most key requirements, but it doesn't matter. If Jehovah is using a cult as his earthly organization, then who am I to complain. I will stick with Jehovah's organization even though you have proved, and I admit you have proved, they are a cult."
And that would... will... be the most amazing circular reasoning of all. I have seen it before, we just may see it again. Of course, that assumes that BLEEP will stick around and actually start discussing the points in this thread; so far we have NO indication that he will do that!
-
72
A Cult
by Beans in.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
-
-
Quotes
Bleep, please address the points already being discussed. You yourself are attempting to change the thread.
I carefully and clearly laid out my argument in a simple, paragraph delineated point-by-point fashion. Please have the courtesty to do the same. If you can.
Changing the subject (like pointing out how some other relgions "make mistakes" (in your opinion) like baptizing babies) does nothing to address the problems in your group, or to counter arguments about perceived problems that others have pointed out here. It is however another sad example of "Poisoning the Well", yet another Logical Fallacy. Check out http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ and click on point 33. Poisoning the Well .
Wow, you really are pretty good at those logical fallacies BLEEP! I'll give credit where credit is due! Some of the most adept fallacious reasoning we've seen in a long time here! Congratulations!
Edited by - Quotes on 12 August 2002 21:8:13
-
72
A Cult
by Beans in.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
-
-
Quotes
Bleep:
We are all waiting for you to reply to the points listed in my previous post.
Yes, you did post in this thread following my post.
No, you did not reply to ANY of the points raised in my post. Although I am begin to feel like you are not here to discus, I will take a chance and disect you most recent post. Your most recent post was:
A cult definition was shown on this topic. So I understood what the Cult was and it was not my religion at all. It is not a distorted view since it is a way of life for many. It is not just a passing cult but it will stand to time indefinite in Jehovah's New System of things. This system is like the Titanic. You never saw the captain of the Titanic trying to patch up the hole did you?
A cult definition was show
That is correct. The WT's definition, as published in one of their books (the "Reasoning" book). As I pointed out in my post which you seem to have conveniently ignored, that particular definition is not complete and not comprehensive. It is a "Straw Man" argument, designed to be easily knocked over. However, as I showed, even by their own Straw Man argument, JWs do fit their definition in 2 out of 3 of their points. (And as I pointed out, the remaining point is irrelevant).Consider this: if the David Koresh was accused of being a cult, don't you think he would deny it, (which is, of course, his right) and attempt to show why Branch Davidians are not a cult? In that event, wouldn't you feel frustrated when a Branch Davidian would "parrot" Koresh's argument to "proove" Davidians are not a cult? If that member ignored counter arguments which tended to indicate that their group is cult-like, wouldn't you agree that they are being rather one-sided?
So I understood what a cult was
Perhaps it is more correct to say you accepted the flawed logic in the Reasoning book before other posters here were kind enough to point out the flaws. Now that I (and others) have given a more complete definition, it is time for you to respond (unless you are being dogmatic, in which case why are you in here? This forum is for discussions, not dogmatism).It is not a distorted view since it is a way of life for many
There also many millions in the group known as The Unification Church (also known as the Moonies, named after their founder the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon. (I could go on with other examples, but I won't at this time). You seem to be saying that just because a group is large, has many members, then it can not be a cult. If that is your point, it is incorrect. Membership size has nothing to do with indicating if a group is, or is not, a cult. So your point here is moot.It is not just a passing cult but it will stand to time indefinite in Jehovah's New System of things.
Only time will answer this point, but again the point is moot. The length of history of a group has nothing to do with determining if a group is a cult. You might as well be saying "we are not a cult because we are headquartered in Brooklyn" or "we are not a cult because the sky is blue" or "we are not a cult because the grass at our kingdom halls is green". My examples are, like yours, ridiculous. They have nothing to do with analysing a cults social interaction and level of control over its members.This system is like the Titanic. You never saw the captain of the Titanic trying to patch up the hole did you?
I'm having trouble trying to understand what your point is here, and what it has to do with this thread, namely, "are JWs a cult?" Even though it is not related to the thread, this point point still does not make sense on its own merits. Of course the Captain of the Titanic would have patched the hole, if possible. Since patching a hole at sea is not an option, he used the means at his disposal to contain the situation: he sealed the water-tight doors to contain the situation. When it became clear that this protection system was insufficient to contain the damage (due to the size of the hole and the fact that the water tight compartments did not extend to a high enough deck level) evacuation was ordered (lamentably, with insufficient life boats). I suppose you would have preferred that the Captain of the Titanic raise his arms and pray instead of taking action?
Again, the last point is completely off this topic. Why don't you get back to addressing the points made? If you are able...
For those of you that would like to learn rather than be dogmatic (I hope that includes you, BLEEP) check out the book Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan. You can find it online at www.amazon.com or www.amazon.ca (for you Canucks, eh).
Edited by - Quotes on 12 August 2002 17:29:44
-
72
A Cult
by Beans in.
let us not forget how the watchtower views themselves!
edited by - beans on 10 august 2002 11:29:50.
-
-
Quotes
Beans asked me chime in here, so I will. In response to "BLEEP"s detailed, prosaic, TWO LINE POSTS (*AHEM*) let me just say this:
No human leader! We have some kind of a problem with your topic.
A standard from the Bible! No cult would stay with that standard. The worship being a way of life.
They do not isolate themselves. No cult there, thanks for the info.
Here BLEEP is attempting to use the WT's "SRAW MAN" argument to "prove" JWs are not a cult. To save space, I won't re-explain what a STRAW MAN argument is, but you can find a detailed explanation here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (click on point number 41, "Straw Man").
JWs have no single, individual human leader (i.e. no Swami Rajneesh, no David Koresh). BUT THIS ROLE IS FILLED BY THE GOVERNING BODY. So they have a collective group for their human leadership rather than an individual. This still falls within the definition of potential tell-tale signs for a cult (recall that Heaven's Gate was led by "TI" and "DO" before DO died leaving only TI).
Perhaps BLEEPS replay to my post will be "if that if this is what makes a cult then every single business is a cult." Let me cut that lame argument off at the pass: This point alone does not make a group a cult, but rather it is ONE OF MANY pointers which MAY indicate a group is a cult. I.E. one of many ingredients, none of which is essential. So the score so far: 1 for 1 in favor of being a cult.
A standard from the Bible! No cult would stay with that standard.
The fact is that although not all cults are "religiously motivated" (there are, for example cults of business, money, and greed) the many that are religious, and more specifically nominally Judeo-Christian, CLAIM TO FOLLOW THE BIBLE. They all say the same thing: "We are looking to the bible for instruction, motivation, explanation". Of course, non-cult groups claim to follow the bible too. Either way, that claim means nothing -- in all cases, both cult and non-cult alike, it comes down to following that group's (often unique) interpretation of the bible. The interpretation is provided by the movement's leaders. An even rudimentary study of cults would indicate that claims for guidance and inspiration, or beliefs in general, have nothing to do with classify a group as cultic or non-cultic. Score: still 1 for 1 in favor of JWs being a cult, despite this RED HERRING argument. (Again, you can read about Red Herring here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) at point number 36.
They do not isolate themselves.
At the very least, without breaking a sweat, one could argue that BETHELITES are phyically isolated, living in a closed community with only other members of the group, doing work exclusively for the group. So at the very least, Bethelites clearly have this cultic marker against them. Again however, note two things: (1) Isolation (either physical or mental) is not a de facto requirement for a finding of cult (although it is very common among many cults) and (2) non-bethelite JWs are MENTALLY and EMOTIONALLY isolated from the rest of society. They are told to be "no part of the world" and to "not have close friendship with worldly persons" and they miss many (or should I say most) social situations where friends and family would normally interact (parties, birthdays, Christmas, New Years, etc. etc.). The score now: 2 for 2 in favor of being a cult.
OK, that makes 2 out of 2. Unfortunately we have come to the end of the Reasoning Books' short list of things which make a group a cult, so although we are "batting a thousand" we have at least a dozen more "pitches" to consider.
Entire books have been written about cults and defining them; did you really think that ONE PARAGRAPH would provide a definitive coverage of the topic? Tsk tsk tsk.
~Quotes.