Posts by Giles Gray

88

For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?

by BourneIdentity in

in the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.

we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.

why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?

Giles Gray

Hello TTWSYF

Thanks for getting back so soon.

You say:-

“Frankly, though, if one cannot see the difference between on being martyred for ones beliefs as opposed to being martyred for what YOU witnessed, then I am only wasting typing time here.”

I’m not actually arguing against your point above. I agree that there would be a profound difference between the two positions. A first hand account is about the best evidence one could get. So I’m more than happy to concede that point.

However, this distinction still doesn’t help substantiate your original claim… that the manner of their martyrdom proves that God and the bible are true.

This is easily illustrated by using syllogisms. So lets start with what I believe is your proposition (please correct me if I have misrepresented you or if you would like to amend either of the premises or the conclusion):-

Premise 1: The apostles and hundreds of other people witnessed first hand Jesus being resurrected and, as a result, went on to die horrific deaths as martyrs because of the conviction of what they had seen.

Premise 2: ONLY people with the conviction of firsthand experiences would ever allow themselves to suffer such horrific martyrdom.

Conclusion: The ONLY explanation for these people allowing themselves to die in such a manner would be if Jesus had actually risen, therefore the god of the bible exists.

Is this a fair representation of your argument?

88

For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?

by BourneIdentity in

in the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.

we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.

why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?

Giles Gray

Hello TTWSYF.

Thanks for your response.

You say:-

" Just saw your post. Will address all of your questions in the next few days or less. I won't have time to effectively answer each one now."

That's no problem. There's no rush.

I will refrain from responding to your latest comment until you've had time to address the other points you would like to answer.

88

For any that still believe in God and Jesus, what is your reasoning on this matter?

by BourneIdentity in

in the old testament, god was always full of anger and jealousy resulting in the murder of millions of people.

we’re told jesus perfectly reflects his fathers qualities.

why in the new testament does jesus show no hint of anger and jealousy and wanting to kill people?

Giles Gray

"One example of evidence could be the way the apostles and 90% of the early Christians leaders were tortured to death is evidence. Why die for a lie? To what end?"

This line of reasoning is used by nearly all judeo-christian theologies in order to substantiate their faith. It utilises a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.

The fallacious nature of this argument is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Muslims and Mormons can also employ the same false reasoning to uphold their competing theologies.

It is also incorrect to presume that the first century martyrs knowingly died for a lie. The fact that they died by such gruesome executions indicates the extent of their conviction in what they believed.

However, this only goes to demonstrate the folly of using faith as a metric to assess what is truth. Faith allows people to hold conviction in their beliefs without sufficient evidence. As a result, people have died because of holding fast to a belief based on poor epistemology.

Being martyred because of adhering to faulty premises only reveals the fallibility of religious conviction. People can die for being mistaken, which is certainly no indication that what they died for is true. Therefore the martyrdom of the first century Christians can hardly be used as evidence that what they believed in was truth.

" Although both were martyrs, there's a major difference when you are a witness and know that it is false."

Such evidence can only be considered anecdotal and is impossible to distinguish from folklore. That's still not sufficient evidence for God.

The above statement negates the unfalsifyiable claim that the martyrdom of the first century Christians can in any way be considered as evidence that the god of the bible exists. If believers of other theologies can have faith based on false beliefs, it leaves us no methodology in order to be able to distinguish the early Christians from any other believer.

For example, the prophet Muhammad many times witnessed an Angelophany as well as many other miracles. He also died a martyr.

The faith of Islam and classic Christianity contradict each other in many ways, yet by the above reckoning they both equally tick the criteria that qualifies as evidence of their gods. This way of reasoning is therefore irreconcilable and defies the laws of logic.

The only way to prove either theological claim would be to supply sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claim was factual. Therefore, testimony from either of the religious fables cannot be considered as evidence, because they both meet the required criteria while at the same time prove contradictory to each other.

As there is no contemporary evidence to substantiate that the early Christians did actually witness the resurrection of Jesus, (a point equally applicable to the assertions surrounding the prophet of Islam) the testimony of their claim cannot be verified one way or the other. It therefore cannot be considered evidence for God.

98

One simple photo to sum up the heartless and hypocritical attitudes of many Jehovah's Witnesses

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

.

this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.

disgusting.

Giles Gray

@ Afterburn.

Your points have already been covered and debunked in my posts to flipper.

10

Who made it that way?

by nicolaou in

it's infuriating because it's so childish.

you can explain how a rainbow appears because sunlight is refracted under the right conditions but you'll get asked;.

"so who made those conditions that way?".

Giles Gray

Some snakes have sharp, long, hollow or grooved teeth that are connected to a small sac in the snake's head behind its eyes.

These sacs produce a poisonous liquid called venom and are 'designed' to kill.

So who made it that way?

98

One simple photo to sum up the heartless and hypocritical attitudes of many Jehovah's Witnesses

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

.

this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.

disgusting.

Giles Gray

Hello flipper.

Thanks for sharing your heart-warming story. Credit to you.

There’s so much of your comment that I would like to critique but it would be at the risk of being deemed contentious I'm sure.

However, I need to address these few points.

You say:-

“… I feel it’s important to get my point across here.”

It’s imperative to note that I have acknowledged your points in my previous posts. It’s the reason why I answered your question so candidly. I wanted to assure you that I see your point of view, and I even suspended my own perspective to accommodate your line of reasoning, which is why my answer was in keeping with what your question was alluding to. I could only answer in that manner if I understood your perspective.

You also say:-

“In one of your earlier posts you asked me if I practice what I preach regarding homeless people.”

It wasn’t me who quizzed you over that matter.

You are confusing me with Drearyweather, who asked you that question on page 4 of this thread. Easy mistake to make.

You make the following protest:-

“Also, you asked me 5 questions to answer. My friend, I’m not your pupil attending a class in school where I have to answer your hypothetical questions. Jeez. Are you a teacher or something ?”

That’s a bit of a double standard considering in your previous post you say:-

“Let me ask you THIS question…”

… and then go on to question me about the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that photograph. Why can you ask me questions and I can’t do likewise?

It’s interesting to note that I was more than happy to answer your “hypothetical” question. It’s disappointing you couldn’t return the compliment.

I’ll finish with this comment of yours:-

“… Take the blinders off of our eyes and see the circumstances of people with REALITY.”

I suppose this is all that I am suggesting to you regarding the JWs in that photo. There is a high probability that your presupposition is correct. However, neither of us know the REALITY… only the JWs themselves and the homeless person. We are not in a position to see what the reality is with ‘our eyes’.

This means that any firm judgement would be made with our ‘blinders’ of bias over our eyes.

It’s much more prudent to ‘err on the side of caution’, similar to secular judicial systems. When requesting a verdict, a judge will ask the jury if the accused is either GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. Juries are not asked to determine INNOCENCE… and for good reason.

Just because someone is found ‘not guilty’, it doesn’t mean that they are innocent. It just means that there is not sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction… that the burden of proof has not been met. This means that only people that are KNOWN to be guilty receive judgement. It awards people the “benefit of the doubt”, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Contrast secular judicial systems with the judicial hearings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many times they will base their verdict on what they feel, as well as arbitrary evidence. They also pass verdicts based on presuppositions, especially when it comes to cases of apostasy, where people are considered guilty until proved innocent. As a former elder, you will be all too aware of this. There have been many cases where they will disfellowship someone on evidence that is ‘more probable than not’ and don’t allow people (to quote you) “way too much the benefit of the doubt”. As a result injustice is rife.

Out of the two judicial systems, the former is a much more ethical way to adjudicate. It would be reprehensible to pass judgement using the Watchtower’s judicial methods… particularly if we ex-JWs are judging individual Jehovah’s Witnesses (like those in this photograph). To do so would be hypocritical.

You take care Mr flipper.

98

One simple photo to sum up the heartless and hypocritical attitudes of many Jehovah's Witnesses

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

.

this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.

disgusting.

Giles Gray

Hello flipper

Let’s start with this comment of yours:-

“We are not “falling prey” to discrimination as you say.”

I beg to differ. Considering what you have written, I think the evidence proves otherwise. It’s evident even in your latest post, which I will go on to reveal later.

So… to your first comment I wish to address:-

“I don’t have hatred individually towards JW’s. I have anger and resentment, righteous indignation at the lack of justice within the JW organization, and I’d be remiss to not state a travesty of justice when I see it.”

I’ve only ever known you to be principled and reasonable. Admittedly, I only know of you from reading your posts on a computer, but you have posted prolifically enough over the years for one to get a reasonable flavour of the person behind the screen. This is why it was so surprising to read your scathing remarks about those random JWs in the photograph.

You continue, making this accusation about my personal stance:-

“You state that the picture of JW’s standing there ignoring a homeless man within a few feet of them is no big deal. I strongly disagree!”

Where…? Where have I ‘stated’ that in any of my comments on this thread?

I don’t believe (at this point) that you would deliberately use a ‘straw man’ fallacious argument, but you’ve made up that alleged statement yourself. I said nothing of the sort.

You continue:-

“It’s an evidence of the JW and WT mantra that whatever THEY are doing ( in this case the preaching work ) is MUCH more important than assisting this homeless man.”

It is an indisputable fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses prioritise the preaching work.

However, this fact doesn’t indicate in the least that those Jehovah’s Witnesses in that picture DON’T ALSO assist homeless people. In fact, the anecdotal evidence on page 5 of this thread suggests that there’s the likelihood they DO “regularly” assist the homeless where this picture was taken.

Now to address your question. You asked me to answer:-

“If any of these JW’s standing there had half a conscience, or just a shred of humanity, don’t you think they’d either (A) Help this man to his feet, offer him coffee, assist him to walk to get a warm meal in a diner or (B) Leave his personal space or area to allow him to sleep and carry on with whatever HE wants to do.”

My answer to your question is…. Yes! If the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that photo had any decency at all they would offer that poor fellow something to eat and something to drink, and they should be considerate of his personal space because that would be the right thing to do.

That is my direct and candid answer to your question.

However, I take issue with your question because not only is the argument you put forward a BLACK AND WHITE FALLACY, it is also a LOADED QUESTION.

It unjustly takes for granted the supposition that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that picture are at fault and are guilty of misdemeanours. It also omits to consider the possibility of alternative scenarios that would have a huge bearing on the interpretation of that photo . Not only is your question (and argument) a logical fallacy, in the scenario at hand it is also a sure indication of a prejudiced and biased disposition.

And it is that prejudiced and biased attitude that is so wrong & offensive.

Therefore, I have a few questions that I would like to ask you in return, with the hope that you will also respond as candidly and honest as I have been with yours. I will number my questions so that you can specifically answer them individually.

The following questions are the alternative perspectives that I believe have not been considered from your line of reasoning:-

Question 1: Considering that photograph, how do you know that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have not already given (or will go on to give) the homeless person something to eat or to drink or offer to take him to a café?

Question 2: How do you know that the homeless person was lying there asleep in that place BEFORE the Jehovah’s Witnesses set up their stand?

Question 3: How do you reconcile kramer’s comment (on page 5 of this thread) with your assertion that these Jehovah’s Witnesses are “insensitive louts”, considering that kramer states that “the homeless people (in that part of London) do get talked to regularly and get bought food and drinks by the people on trolleys”?

Question 4: If we assume for a moment that kramer’s anecdotal evidence is true and is applicable to the 5 JWs in that photograph, what would we make of the accusations against those JWs?

This is how I would answer those questions:-

My answer to question 1 is:- from looking at that picture, I have no clue if the Jehovah’s Witnesses have assisted the homeless person or not. I can neither condemn the Jehovah’s Witnesses for their alleged inaction or commend them for their alleged altruism.

My answer to question 2:- from looking at that picture, I have no idea whether or not the Jehovah’s Witnesses encroached on the homeless person’s space or if the homeless person decided to sleep next to the Jehovah’s Witnesses after they had already set up their stand. So I wouldn’t know whether to accuse the JWs of being thoughtless or accuse the homeless person of making the Jehovah’s Witnesses look bad (according to some).

My answer to question 3:- I have no idea if kramer’s anecdotal evidence is true or not. However, I have no reason to doubt him, although it would require further verification before I could even think about passing judgement on the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that photograph.

My answer to question 4:- If we assume kramer’s claims are true, it would mean that the photograph in the opening post of this thread doesn’t reveal the full story and any accusations against those Jehovah’s Witnesses are completely unjustifiable.

The ambiguous nature of that photograph only leads to the obvious conclusion that it would be wrong to make any judgement of the subjects therein. An unbiased perspective would by necessity, not promote any conclusion on the matter either way.

However, any firm conclusion drawn from that picture would automatically be due to a biased and prejudice opinion, due to the undeniable fact that there is no way of confirming, one way or the other, what those Jehovah’s Witnesses did or didn’t do.

I look forward to hearing your answers to the above questions.

98

One simple photo to sum up the heartless and hypocritical attitudes of many Jehovah's Witnesses

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

.

this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.

disgusting.

Giles Gray

Hello flipper

You say:-

“Well my friend, there’s a REASON, there’s a REASON that some of us come out hard against the WT Society and hold them accountable for the sick, sick mind control tactics. Not only have WE experienced it, lived it- but our daughters, siblings, some other relatives still DISPLAY the same insensitive, inhuman personality traits that the WT leaders instill and indoctrinate into most every JW man, woman, and child out there.”

To reiterate what I wrote in my previous comment, I am fully acquainted with how toxic the Watchtower is. I too have suffered greatly at the hands the Watchtower and the attitudes of the members who adhere to the authoritarian structure. I get it. You really are ‘preaching to the choir’.

I come down as hard on the society as any other former member and I also hold the religion accountable. That is what motivates me to engage with believing Jehovah’s Witnesses and promote as much as possible how destructive the organisation really is.

However, that being said, it is also a fact that there is a REASON why the Jehovah’s Witnesses act as they do. There is a REASON why they discriminate against former members (which is far more complex than the overly simplistic explanation that they are ‘inhuman, divinely privileged, elitist louts’). Just because there’s a REASON in no way EXCUSES their biased actions and attitudes.

The same principle applies to ex-JWs as well.

In fact, ex-JWs are even more accountable for being prejudice because of the fact that we are aware of how biased and prejudice the mind control of the organisation operates. Jehovah’s Witnesses have no idea they are under mind control.

With greater knowledge (and in this case, insight) comes greater responsibility.

We can’t point to the harmful and discriminatory actions of a group of people while we are also falling pray to the same weakness ourselves. It just means that we are as ‘hypocritical’ as we have accused/observed them of being. It is equally as wrong.

You also say:-

“I’m just being blatantly honest about the FACT that ALL Jehovah’s Witnesses whether they care to admit it- or not. Are ALL mind controlled slaves, and that does NOT let them off the hook for accountability for their own actions.”

Using the same yardstick, it could also be said that ALL ex-JWs who adversely judge and scathingly condemn people using nothing more than an emotive photograph (overtly displaying confirmation bias) are as equally accountable for their own presumptuous attitudes and are equally subject to mind control due to allowing the consensus of their echo chamber to mislead them into being indiscriminate in their prejudice of people that they don’t even know.

Every human is subject to mind control in one way or another. It’s as harmful if you are a Jehovah’s Witnesses as it is if you are an ex-Jehovah’s Witness.

I don’t believe that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that picture don’t have compassion for that homeless person. This position is supported by the experience of the poster Kramer who affirms that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that part of London do indeed extend kindness to the homeless in that area. I also know of many Jehovah’s Witnesses who extend kindnesses to people outside of the religion, without the necessity of wishing to convert them. I know first hand of a die hard Jehovah’s Witness who gave a job to a man who was down and out and begging for money. Even though it never led to a conversion, the elder continued to employ the person in need until he was in a position to move on.

None of the examples above fits into the hyperbolic rendition of what Jehovah’s Witnesses are depicted as by many ex-JWs. Most Witnesses I know are far from ‘heartless’. In fact, they are much the opposite… in spite of being subject to the mind control of their religion.

Lastly you say:-

“It falls on us who have escaped out of the cult to no bury are heads in the sand about just how dangerous a mind control cult it is.”

I concur. It is equally as important for those of us who have escaped the mind control of one organisation not to close our eyes to the possibility that we could be subjecting ourselves once more to this destructive disposition.

I understand your pain flipper. You have a big heart and have a wonderful online persona and desire to put yourself out for people. You have helped and supported many over the decade or so that I have read your posts. It would be a shame to allow the hurt and the (justifiable) anger you feel to turn into hatred and indiscriminately judge others.

26

Post Your Favorite Misheard Lyrics

by APieceOfShitNamedTate in

@0:53 - "she got dishes, she got fish sticks and snacks/got it ready for the willy, got a chicken in the back.".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krp_fqcmsva .

Giles Gray

https://youtu.be/u97o1dN4KvA

98

One simple photo to sum up the heartless and hypocritical attitudes of many Jehovah's Witnesses

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

.

this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.

disgusting.

Giles Gray

@ flipper

No one is minimising the impact and harm that has been caused by the Jehovah’s Witnesses or attempting to diminish the negative attributes that individual members have as a result of their indoctrination. Ex members such as ourselves have been there and we all know how toxic the religion is.

However, what is of concern is the fact that the self same negative mechanisms that we ex-JWs hold against the Watchtower are overtly apparent in our own ex-JW community.

If a believing Jehovah’s Witness, or even the Watchtower itself, made a discriminatory and presumptuous conclusion about a group of people based on nothing more than an emotive photograph, the members of this forum would be all over those Jehovah’s Witnesses like a rash. We would be quick to point out how biased and prejudiced the Jehovah’s Witnesses were acting. We would accuse them of being quick to judge and we would be correct to do so. It would be wrong.

It’s a very unfortunate fact that the attitudes of some of the ex-JW community are displaying a similar blanket discrimination as the Watchtower. This is understandable under the circumstances, considering how poorly many ex-members have been treated. People need a place where they can vent. However, to maintain this disposition in the long term is unhealthy.

The attitude of this thread is almost a microcosm of the mindset of the Watchtower. The Jehovah’s Witnesses in that emotively designed photograph are being judged using nothing more than INDUCTIVE REASONING, as opposed to what should be the yard stick, which is DEDUCTIVE REASONING. It amounts to nothing more than CONFIRMATION BIAS and is exactly what we all hate about the Watchtower.

The unsavoury traits that are common amongst the members of the Watchtower are bred because of the fact that they don’t look or question beyond the confines of their own ECHO CHAMBER. The self same workings of an echo chamber can easily take root in communities like the ex-JWs on forums like these. The constant (mostly justifiable) negativity against an organisation like the Watchtower can easily lead a person to get embroiled in a biased narrative that is as equally discriminating as the one being fought against.

This only plays into the hands of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who can rightly state that ex-JWs are biased. We become the cliché that they paint us as being, which can only work against the overall objective of someone like you who desires to open the minds of the people caught up in the organisation.

As I have pointed out before, the poster called Kramer affirmed that…

“The homeless people here do get talked to regularly and get brought food and drinks by the people on the trolleys”

…yet what he said wasn’t acknowledged in the least, presumably because it didn’t fit in with the narrative of the ‘anti-Watchtower’ ex-JW echo chamber. Admittedly Kramer’s comment is anecdotal, but what is disappointing is that it wasn’t even considered.

If what Kramer claims is correct then we would all owe the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the photograph a huge apology.

If we are going to conduct ourselves in a similar vein to the organisation, have we truly left it behind and are we any better than they are?