Posts by Saename

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

Saename

Richard Oliver - I also really don't like it when people bring up comments from Watchtower publications prior to about 1975, when it comes to gay people. It diminishes the reality that most of society viewed gay people in the same light. I even know that the DSM didn't take out Homosexuality from their diagnostic list of mental illnesses till about mid-1970s. I think when people use those old publications to claim that Watchtower is so homophobic, minimizes the fact that gay people struggled in society as a whole up to that point and even beyond that.

Yes, I also don't like when people bring up comments from Watchtower publications from the past—but only if the Watchtower has changed their opinion. If someone brought up a comment from Watchtower publication dated as far back as 1950s or 1960s to show they are something that they are not today—half a century later—I would dismiss it.

However, the Watchtower has not changed their opinion on homosexuality. They still view homosexuality as all the things that I mentioned in my previous comment. Therefore, what the Watchtower has said in their publications prior to 1975 is entirely relevant; they have not changed their opinion, and they still demonise homosexuality! So when you say, "It diminishes the reality that most of society viewed gay people in the same light," you need to understand that "most of society" has moved on. The Watchtower has not. Why? The Bible. The very same Bible that says in Deut. 22.28–29 that if a man rapes an unengaged virgin, this man has to then pay her father 50 shekels as form of punishment—and then he gets to marry the woman! How nice! The woman gets no justice... but hey! she gets to marry the man who raped her!

So, yeah, I know the DSM had homosexuality listed as a mental illness, but they removed it from their diagnostic list 44 years ago. Almost half a century ago. They changed. The Watchtower still has not.

I think when people use those old publications to claim that Watchtower is so homophobic, minimizes the fact that gay people struggled in society as a whole up to that point and even beyond that.

No. It doesn't minimise that fact. It brings awareness to the fact that gay people are still demonised by some religious people.

Sorry, Richard Oliver, but I don't believe you're not a Watchtower sympathizer. The Watchtower has verbally assaulted homosexual people. And you are dismissing it. It doesn't matter that it's not happening in the society but in a religion. Religions are not, cannot, and should not be exempt from morality and ethics. If a religion condemns homosexuality or any other lifestyle they have no business condemning, we, as a society, have the responsibility to condemn that religion.

You are a Watchtower sympathizer. It's time you either acknowledge that or stop being a goddamn Watchtower sympathizer. There is evidence—let me highlight that point: there is evidence—that the Watchtower has been demonising homosexuality ever since it began to exist. You cannot dismiss that. Otherwise, you're just as biased as the Witness I was debating not so long ago (the thread I created is in my post history.)

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

Saename

OrphanCrow - "He works so hard for the org and you wouldn't even know he is one of those homos! Ah, well...as long as he keeps serving Jehovah and doesn't make the org look bad by actually practicing his sexuality, we will smile and gave him credit!"

Yup. That is definitely true. I am 100% certain that some Jehovah's Witnesses have indeed reacted this way behind his back. I know several Jehovah's Witnesses who said, in a hypothetical tone since there was nobody homosexual in my congregation as they were smart enough to stay away, things similar to your remark in quotations. Those Witnesses that I know have said on several occasions that, if there were indeed a homosexual person in the congregation, he or she would only be accepted in the community of Jehovah's Witnesses so long as he or she abstains from homosexual acts.

Moreover, I know of several Witnesses who knew of two other Witnesses who were homosexual. (They were not in the congregation I attended.) These Witnesses were "encouraged" (read: forced) to go to two separate congregations for fear they would practise homosexual acts. They did relocate to different congregations, and one of them has even married a woman. In my opinion, either he is bisexual, or he is homosexual but pretends to be "cured." Either way, Jehovah's Witnesses in my city use the story of these two Witnesses as evidence that homosexual people can be "cured."

Have no doubt, Richard Oliver, that no matter what you think of them, they are not friendly towards homosexual people. They only pretend to be. As soon as you found a boyfriend while still being a member of the organisation, you would be ostracised and soon disfellowshipped. And if things went the other way—namely, if you found a wife for the sake of peace as the other Witness in my example did—you would be used as evidence that homosexual people can supposedly be "cured."

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

Saename

Richard Oliver - I don't believe witnesses as a group are homophobic but certainly people inside of the religion are.

Let me disprove that by use of a simple syllogism.

1) All Jehovah's Witnesses (with the exception of those who pretend to be members so that they are not disfellowshipped) read, believe in, and obey whatever is written in the Watchtower publications.

2) The Watchtower has proven to be homophobic by describing homosexuality, on many occasions in their publications, as abhorrent, sexually perverse, sick, perverted, gruesome, violent, downright sadistic, obscene, worthy of death penalty, detestable, vile, and repulsive, and they have also compared homosexuality to child molestation, and mental disorder.

3) All Jehovah's Witnesses (with the exception of those who pretend to be members so that they are not disfellowshipped) are homophobic.

Sources:

Watchtower 2012 Mar 15 p.31

Awake! 1997 Dec 8 pp.14-15

Awake! 1995 Feb 8 p.16

Awake! 1995 Feb 22 p.12,14

True Peace p.150

Awake! 1982 Jun 22 p.10

Awake! 1989 Jul 8 p.27

Watchtower 1979 Mar 15 pp.10,11

15

Compiling a list of Sin

by Nihilistic Journey in

with all the rules that we had to live under to be a good christian it's a wonder that we aren't all neurotic basket cases like i am!

let's compile a list of transgressions and rules that we had to live by.

no rated r movies.

Saename

No worldly sources for education (history etc.) (Someone mentioned spiritual knowledge, and college, but not this specifically.)

No modern interpretations of the Bible.

Women: no authority positions.

I can't do less than my best efforts in preaching etc.

You have to be perfect if you're the child of an elder.

[My apologies in advance if it's too sexually open!!] No oral sex. It'd be a problem for me as I love giving oral sex to women. (Premarital sex was mentioned, but not this...) (On a further note, no other sex than the "ordinary" sex in missionary position. Apparently, ancient writers of the Bible were ignorant to the fact that only around 30% women can orgasm in PIV sex.)

No kissing before marriage. (Most break that rule anyway.)

No entertainment (movies, books, etc.) that involves violence, sex, and other "inappropriate" material.

31

You know it's the Truth, because it attracts crazy people.

by schnell in

jw
friends

i wish i was kidding, but i have heard this idea suggested lately as a defense of the wts.

this is god's organization, even though it attracts crazy people, and because it attracts crazy people.

"unlettered and ordinary," et cetera.. i don't get it.

Saename

Schnell - He then suggested and immediately retracted that without the Bible, we would not have democracy. Jehovah's witnesses must be getting pretty limber from all that stretching and reaching.

Right. Because it wasn't the Greeks in 5th century BCE (Athenian democracy.) No. It was the Bible in late 1st century CE, which forced the Roman empire to invent democracy.

Logic and evidence checks out.

11

Which was the best century to be born in?

by defender of truth in

jw
friends

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-reasons-2016-is-the-best-time-to-be-alive-2016-8/#1-there-are-much-fewer-hungry-people-in-the-world-1.

is the world getting better?.

in which century would you rather have been born, given the choice?

Saename

If I could choose to be born into a rich family, it would be Victorian England. I love this era, but it wasn't as good for poor people.

2

Is This How You Promote Insecurity in Relationships?

by Saename in

it's time for some ridiculous entertainment, guys.

today my sister showed me a video by pewdiepie in which he reacted with his girlfriend to this article.

it was really funny, i have to admit, because he was basically criticising the article.

Saename

It's time for some ridiculous entertainment, guys. Today my sister showed me a video by PewDiePie in which he reacted with his girlfriend to this article. It was really funny, I have to admit, because he was basically criticising the article. The article is entitled, "33 Ways Your Boyfriend Is Micro-Cheating (And Totally Getting Away With It.)"

Technically, it's a stupid article. A more suitable title would be, "33 Ways You're Feeling Insecure in Your Relationship (And Need to Grow Up.)"

Here's one of the "33 ways," which I find extremely entertaining:

31. Following up with a "nice to meet you" message unnecessarily.

And here's the video by PewDiePie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh8veIDL2os

So, although, the article is stupid and written by someone emotionally immature (albeit some of the "ways" are reasonable), it's still a lot of fun to read. It made me laugh. Some things are just so stupid they're funny.

44

Update to UK “Child Safeguarding Policy”

by wifibandit in

a known poster on this site (anon) says:.

i have just received a text from an elder i've known for decades in my circuit who has some sympathy for my feelings and who is aware of the arc, the uk charity commission, etc., etc.

here it is verbatim, and my reply.

Saename

Richard Oliver - OrphanCrow. Then in the same light who are to condemn people who want to JWs or even condemn Watchtower. What position are you in to do that.

God damn it, stop with this idiotic apologetics.

If OrphanCrow were to harm children and/or adults either physically or mentally, we would be in the position to condemn him. If the Watchtower were to harm children and/or adults either physically or mentally, we would be in the position to condemn them. In my opinion, the Watchtower is indeed harming both children and adults; therefore, I am in the position to condemn this organisation.

Richard Oliver - If 2 separate governments and their experts, find that this policy is sufficient to protect children and comply with the laws of the land, will people accept it or will they keep using the policy to demand changes to Watchtower?

If both government organisations accept the changes, it does not necessitate that we do so as well. In the 1900s, the American government was decisively against the black population by discriminating them. The fact that it was legal to discriminate against black people did not mean that the public could not object to those laws. My point is that all of us are in the position to challenge the Watchtower policies, regardless of whether the government accepts them or not.

Richard Oliver - But Watchtower UK has made it clear that women can be involved in a JC, though they wouldn't have a vote in the matter of what actions to take, but women can be used to protect the interest of the child. In the police it states.
"If the child expresses to the elders discomfort in discussing the matter in the presence of a parent, and the parent agrees, then the child may be gently told that he or she may choose an adult companion other than a parent, with whom he or she feels comfortable speaking about the matter, to be present during the discussion."
So even though a woman may not be in the discussions for if someone would be DF or not they would be there as a comfort to the victim and to protect them emotionally.

These paragraphs are even more idiotic. When did the Watchtower make it clear that women can be involved in the Judicial Committee? They have never made that clear. Your quote from 2017 policy says nothing about women being able to be involved in the Judicial Committee. Let me explain.

Firstly, women cannot be present with the child in the room with the elders. If we are to take the wording at face value, which is how usually legal documents are arranged, it is only one adult companion—either male or female—who can be present with the child. Secondly, if a female adult companion is chosen by the child to be in the room with the elders, she will not be able to converse with the elders in regards to what actions should be taken. She will be there only to interact with the child so as to make her or him comfortable with the elders. Ultimately, the elders are the only ones to think about what decisions to make and to eventually make those decisions. Women are not able to be involved in the process, and this is what the Australian Royal Commission has objected to specifically. Thirdly, a child will be able to choose an adult companion only if the child makes it clear to the elders that he or she is uncomfortable in the room with the parent(s). It is highly problematic because a child—and I emphasise the word "child" for specific purpose—will feel uncomfortable to even raise the issue that he or she is uncomfortable with the parent(s).

Conclusively, my opinion is that this policy is a lot of bullshit and a lot of nothing. It makes the very same errors the previous policies (2012 and 2016—albeit I am not sure whether the 2016 policy was applied in the UK) made. Children are still left unprotected, especially since the parents in each congregation will still be uninformed that a child predator is in the congregation. This 2017 policy says that parents will be informed that they should look over their children when a specific adult is nearby; however, the parents will not be informed that this specific adult is actually a child predator. Everyone has the right to know that for the sake of betterment of the society.

207

Honest Questions About Child Abuse

by Richard Oliver in

i have two honest questions for everyone here.

i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.

but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.

Saename

Richard Oliver, you have asked the question what we would do in case of child sexual abuse if there were low-age-of-consent laws in the region. You are making a big mistake by assuming that if sex occurs between legal adults, then no abuse can happen. This is wrong. Let me explain.

It does not matter what age the victim is. If in Angola, which has the age of consent set at 12, a man has sex with a 14-year-old female teenager, the authorities can still arrest the perpetrator. The age of consent would indeed determine that no child sexual abuse occurred; however, if the teenager did not want to have sex, then it would be adult sexual abuse. The perpetrator would still be guilty—it's just that he wouldn't be guilty of child sexual abuse but of adult sexual abuse because the teenager did not want to have sex. If the teenager did want to have sex, then there is no problem because no abuse took place according to Angola's laws—unless the man started hitting her (if Angola does not allow for physical abuse, of which I am not sure) or did something else wrong, or unless the teenager withdrew her consent, then it would become abuse. (Yes, if you agree to have sex with someone, but during the act you decide not to have sex after all, you can withdraw your consent. In such a case, if the man does not get back, it is still sexual abuse.)

It seems to me, Richard Oliver, that you are purposefully muddying the waters to shift the blame from the WTS to the secular government. Either that or you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by asking a misleading question.

27

OK who threw the stink bomb in here?

by Thisismein1972 in

come on a believer, everyone knows it was you so own up to it and teacher will not be cross!.

this is exactly what seems to be happening, a believer runs in drops the stink bomb and runs out again...only to pear around the door when he/she deems it safe to do so.

😅😅😅.

Saename

dubstepped - I respectfully ask that you take your bull-iefs elsewhere because we've already heard it all and our stances are set. So why don't you keep your beliefs to yourself. TY.

Nooooo! Reading A Believer's posts is too entertaining! How else will I find recreation to indulge myself in if he leaves the forum? He's way too amusing!