Note 2: I still have to say that I agree with dubstepped. I showed you those two videos above just for fun, if you wanted to make your goodbye with her feel like a knife stabbing her in the back. Sorry for the imagery, but that's how she'd view it, probably. I am actually surprised you're still trying to get her out. You started this thread around 20 days ago, and I just found it today because you updated it. Well, I gotta tell you, don't try anymore. Show her those two videos and say "Goodbye." That's it. I convinced myself that the organisation was lying. It wasn't somebody else. They showed me the information. But I convinced myself. You're not gonna convince her. Just tell her you are an apostate. An apostate preaching the good news. Show her the videos. And then say, "Goodbye." But regardless of what I said in my previous post, don't engage in any debates.
Saename
JoinedPosts by Saename
-
89
Need advice
by Drwho ini'm a middle aged man.
i dated a jw lady for 3 months ., we never had sex, just made out , half naked , well everything except underwear .
she has been a jw for 40 years ., was married to a jw but he committed adultery 13 years ago so they divorced .
-
-
-
89
Need advice
by Drwho ini'm a middle aged man.
i dated a jw lady for 3 months ., we never had sex, just made out , half naked , well everything except underwear .
she has been a jw for 40 years ., was married to a jw but he committed adultery 13 years ago so they divorced .
-
-
Saename
You want to dispel "what a [JW] says about God [using] the Watchtower"? Well, show her those two videos:
Stephen Lett says that the Watchtower has no problems with child sexual abuse and calls any allegations "apostate-driven lies and dishonesties":
Stephen Lett Says There Is No Problem with Child Sexual Abuse
Geoffrey Jackson, during the Australia Royal Commission, admits in court under oath that the Watchtower is, in fact, experiencing problems with child sexual abuse.
Geoffrey Jackson Admits There Is a Problem with Child Sexual Abuse
This should convince her (hopefully) that child sexual abuse allegations are not apostate lies, and that the Governing Body members lie to them when they say something different.
Note: If your girlfriend confronts you in regards to a question Geoffrey Jackson is asked in the second video, namely when he is asked, "And would you disagree then with anyone who said that the efforts to highlight and to deal with child sexual abuse in the Jehovah's Witness church is engaging in apostate lies?" Geoffrey Jackson does not say that child sexual abuse allegations are apostate lies. He is very ambiguous in his statement, that's for sure (and for a good reason—so that any JW watching this can say that child sexual abuse allegations are in fact apostate lies), but what he is denying is not child sexual abuse. He is denying other allegations that "apostates" make when they confront Jehovah's Witnesses regarding pedophilia. He, being a liar that he is (watch all the recordings from the Australia Royal Commission to see how he and the elders are attempting to dodge difficult questions and, in some cases, even lying about them), tries not to answer whether child sexual abuse allegations are apostate lies. (By the way, ambiguity is an actual logical fallacy; did you know?)
P.S. What did your girlfriend say exactly about apostates being like Adam and Eve? I have never heard that argument, and it doesn't really make sense to me... I mean, we are apostates, but we are apostates preaching the good news, are we not?
-
60
New Here ... Just woke up
by Sevan inhey all, .
this is my first post.
i haven't been out in service or to a meeting in over a month.. i realize now that i've been having serious questions for years and many articles and talks have greatly disturbed me over the years.
-
-
Saename
The second link doesn't work for unknown-to-me reasons. Here it is, again:
Geoffrey Jackson Admits the Problem of Child Sexual Abuse within the Organisation
My apologies about that.
-
60
New Here ... Just woke up
by Sevan inhey all, .
this is my first post.
i haven't been out in service or to a meeting in over a month.. i realize now that i've been having serious questions for years and many articles and talks have greatly disturbed me over the years.
-
-
Saename
Also, if you want to convince your husband of the "TTATT," show him those two clips:
Stephen Lett Lies about Pedophilia
And then this one...
Geoffrey Jackson Admits the Problem of Pedophilia in the Organisation
He'll be shocked. Especially take note at Stephen Lett's straw-man argument. (The straw-man fallacy is when one misrepresents somebody's argument to make it easier to attack.) He says that apostates lie by saying that the organisation is permissive towards pedophilia. However, that is not the case. Those "apostates" say that the organisation has inadequate policies that hurt the victims and, possibly incidentally, protect the perpetrators.
In the second clip, Geoffrey Jackson admits that the organisation is experiencing problems with child sexual abuse. However, also note how he words his statements. For instance, he says, "There have been changes in policies over the last twenty or thirty years when we've tried to address some of those problem areas, and by the fact that we've changed the policy would indicate that the original policies weren't perfect." He is purposefully claiming that the change itself indicates that the past policies "weren't perfect." He is obviously leaving room for faithful followers of the organisation (in case they watched the Commission) to interpret his words as if they meant, "Look at how the holy spirit guides us. We noticed that the policies weren't good, so we changed them." Also, he says that "the original policies weren't perfect." What about current policies? I mean, the question that he was asked used present perfect tense. And he answered in the past tense? What. About. Current. Policies?
-
60
New Here ... Just woke up
by Sevan inhey all, .
this is my first post.
i haven't been out in service or to a meeting in over a month.. i realize now that i've been having serious questions for years and many articles and talks have greatly disturbed me over the years.
-
-
Saename
Sevan,
Thanks for your follow-up. When it comes to the Australian Royal Commission you said you are planning to read the transcripts of, you can also watch the recordings. It's not only important to know what is said but also how it is said. Here you have a YouTube Playlist with all the recordings:
ARC: Child Sexual Abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses
You might be surprised at how the elders and Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the Governing Body, strove to dodge the questions asked. For instance, Geoffrey Jackson had to be reminded to answer questions posed to him around seven times. But once you have the bigger picture, you can see why that is.
Also, you said that you now realize that you are not as much of an independent thinker as you once thought you were. This is not strictly speaking true. It's true that you were convinced that this cult was the truth, but so were many of us, including me. I have always thought of myself as an independent thinker. The fact that you were convinced by this cult doesn't mean you're not an independent thinker. The fact that you got yourself out of this cult means that you are, in fact, an independent thinker.
Many people cannot defeat cognitive dissonance. Many people are not ready to face the truth about the truth. You are. And it means something. You can watch the following video to see why cults are successful at conversing people, and, surprisingly, rationality has little to do with it:
-
39
$40,000.00 USD, and counting.....
by DATA-DOG ini'm not sure if anyone is keeping track, but as of today, the wtbts has spent $40,000.00 usd to avoid releasing sensitive documents to the superior authorities.
that's $40,000.00 usd of "dedicated funds.
are you a born-in jw?
-
-
Saename
4thgen - $120,000.00 is pittance to them. They can sell a Kingdom Hall for it's equity and still have cash left over. GRRRR
That's true. But as somebody else pointed out—possibly in another thread—they would then have a lot of things to explain to the media, to the non-JWs, and to the JWs. The JWs would believe anything, but the two other groups I mentioned, especially the non-JWs? The so-called "apostates"? Heck, I even wish the Governing Body actually did that!
-
47
here i am
by notalone ini was a 4th gen born in.my adult children were the 5th.
my mother was one of the newly'anointed' we have all left.
i have been lurking since october.i was really too terrified someone would find out who i was and what would happen.well we are out now so here is a part of my story.
-
-
Saename
Welcome to the community. We are glad to "have" you. I hope you'll enjoy your time here.
I'm new here, too, actually, so... But I was the only JW in my family. I quit when I did research about the Governing Body. In my case, it was the child sexual abuse issue that I first learned and thus that convinced me. Watching the ARC on YouTube was unbelievable.
But my father turned against the JWs as soon as he heard about JWs discouraging higher education...
Well, anyway, I hope to read from you even more.
-
31
AWAKE! NO. 5 2016 - Did Jesus Really Exist?
by ttdtt inso again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
-
-
Saename
Something didn't work quite right above... The bold font in quotations don't work. Here is the passage to which you refer to as a "forgery," with likely interpolations in bold:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
When it comes to the two other passages, I'm sure you can read it anyway, so...
-
31
AWAKE! NO. 5 2016 - Did Jesus Really Exist?
by ttdtt inso again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
-
-
Saename
Crazyguy - Tacitis only refers to Christ never mentions the name Jesus. Josephus mention two guys named Jesus , one is a guy on the wall calling down bad things on the people of Jerusalem and then he writes that he was killed by a rock. The other mentioning of a Jesus most experts agree this texts was a forgery.
Not sure where you learned that nonsense.
Firstly, you say that "most experts agree this [mention of Jesus by Josephus] was a forgery." Not at all. Most experts agree that this mention was tampered with but that the core of it is original. Check your sources next time. Here is the text from Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 (likely interpolations in bold):
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. he drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Louis H. Feldman surveyed 52 scholars on this subject and found that 39 of them (75%) considered the passage to be partially authentic. Then, Peter Kirby also examined thirteen books that touch on this passage and found that ten of them (77%) also considered it to be partly genuine. The other three books, quite "coincidentally," argue that Jesus did not exist.
The other mention of Jesus... Oh my God, do I even have to argue that? Where the heck did you get your information? "A guy on the wall calling down bad things on the people of Jerusalem and then he writes that he was killed by a rock"? Where the heck did you get that from? I'm serious... Here is the passage you're referring to in Antiquities of the Jews XX.9.1 (the important part in bold):
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so [the High Priest] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
Josephus here mentions James who was stoned. He also identifies James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah." It's pretty clear to whom, as in which Jesus, Josephus is referring here. We know from ancient sources that at that time in Jerusalem, James, Jesus' brother, led the Jesus sect, and we also have a non-dependent account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood. It couldn't be clearer.
Now, let's consider Tacitus. You say he never mentions the name Jesus... But is it all that matters? Here is the passage from Annals XV.44 (the important part in bold):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition [Christianity], thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil [Christianity], but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
Here, Tacitus calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstion." This is an important detail which shows that Tacitus utterly despised Christianity. Instead of mocking the religion—a Jewish cult at the time—for having spurious origins, Tacitus, a historian, acknowledges that it comes from Jesus. He mentions Jesus, though by his title Christ (Christus), in detail. He says he suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilatus during the reign of Tiberius. Sounds pretty familiar to me...
I wasn't planning on debating that, but I was really curious where the heck you got your "facts" from. I really, really hate when people don't check their facts and spread false information.
-
31
AWAKE! NO. 5 2016 - Did Jesus Really Exist?
by ttdtt inso again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
-
-
Saename
cyberjesus - Well documented?.... how? Where? When? In the watchtower literature?
I'm assuming you're speaking to me. I don't think I'm going to debate with a Jesus mythicist, so I'll put it in a brief, blatant, and clear way.
There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars who agree that Jesus did exist. We have two references to him in Josephus' work and one reference to him in Tacitus' work. One author knew Jesus' brother, James, and Jesus' disciple, Peter, and was an eyewitness to both of those persons. This is more than for any other Jewish Messianic claimant of the first century. So.. er.. yes, it is well-documented. You don't have to agree. But as Bart Ehrman, one of the leading scholars on the New Testament studies who specializes in textual criticism, put it, "I'm sorry. I respect your disbelief, but if you want to go where the evidence goes... I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that's what you're gonna believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence and arguing historically rather than coming up with a theory that Jesus didn't exist."