Posts by FreeWilly

17

Breaking Up is Hard to Do...

by joe_from_kokomo in

my wife and i just left the wts after some 6 years of involvement (5 1/2 as baptized jws).

it has been a painful experience, i must tell you, but also one that has been filled with great joy and relief, too.

the agony and the ecstasy, you could say.

FreeWilly

Great post Joe!

Leaving is like removing a wart. It hurts at the time, but the comfort you get once evrything heals makes it well worth it!

I am a couple of years gone. It's all about the freedom. The freedom from man made pressure, the ability to judge people as individuals, time to pursue MY interests, time with family, new real friends, not having to turn every conversation into some kinda sales pitch, etc, etc - Yep - no regrets.

I sympathize for those still trapped inside (like my folks). It sucks the life right out of them. :(

25

Tell me why I bother?????

by asleif_dufansdottir in

(i used to be a truck driver.

trust me.

i have the vocabulary).

FreeWilly

asleif,

I read your posts on beliefnet all the time. If you notice when a thought is logically and factually presented it is only the stubborn, hardcore JW's who will persist in justifying the Society at all costs. All JW's are not that stupid. They can see (by reading the illogical JW replys) how ridiculous it is to try to justify the crap put out by the Society. That’s why many refrain from posting when the facts are clearly presented. They would have to put on an idiot suit to try to defend some of this stuff. For example, look at all of the justifications made over the Society's UN involvement. I'm quite sure that if the average JW knew all of the facts they would do some serious rethinking. I think it is just as powerful to see how unreasonable they are expected to be in order to defend the Society's position. Oldgrm, Blindshutter and others are precious to me. They illustrate vividly what many of us say all the time.... You have to be a knucklehead to believe everything that comes from the Society.

-Nuetrino

37

Confused

by jusastudy in

jw
friends

i have been reading your posts at work.

i have been studing with the witnesses for about a year this last time.

i have almost completed the knowledge book.

FreeWilly

Just a study,

Some advice. You are in a fork in the road. IF you decide to get baptised you are putting your family, your friends and your own well being at risk. The changes that come along with becoming a witness are subtle but brutal should you decide to leave later. The decisions you make NOW concerning JW's are important and could have a profound impact on your life! Don't be complacent or passive. Examine both sides of the story before you take a plunge !

The situation you are in right now is relatively benign. You can choose not to commit yourself to this publishing company and avoid the retributions it reserves for baptised members.

PS.... Would you ever buy a car after listening to ONLY the salesman?? - Get the whole story.

37

Confused

by jusastudy in

jw
friends

i have been reading your posts at work.

i have been studing with the witnesses for about a year this last time.

i have almost completed the knowledge book.

FreeWilly

Just a study,

Some advice. You are in a fork in the road. IF you decide to get baptised you are putting your family, your friends and your own well being at risk. The changes that come along with becoming a witness are subtle but brutal should you decide to leave later. The decisions you make NOW concerning JW's are important and could have a profound impact on your life! Don't be complacent or passive. Examine both sides of the story before you take a plunge !

The situation you are in right now is relatively benign. You can choose not to commit yourself to this publishing company and avoid the retributions it reserves for baptised members.

PS.... Would you ever buy a car after listening to ONLY the salesman?? - Get the whole story.

11

WT meeting comments - on "media reports"

by FreeWilly in

jw
friends

well i went to a meeting while visiting my family.

i was particularly interested in the comments from the wt paragraphs that medioned recent "media reports" in it.. first off, i found it rather clever the way the wt worded the paragraphs regarding media reports.

they asked "how do you feel when you hear reports about jws in the media that are distortions or outright lies"?

FreeWilly

Hi everyone,

Well I went to a meeting while visiting my family. I was particularly interested in the comments from the WT paragraphs that medioned recent "media reports" in it.

First off, I found it rather clever the way the WT worded the paragraphs regarding media reports. They asked "how do you feel when you hear reports about JWs in the media that are distortions or outright lies"? I find it clever because they are not actually saying that recent media reports are distortions or lies. They are simply asking how one feels when the come across reports that are deceptive. There is only one reasonable answer to that question - a lie or distortion cannot be good (even I would agree to that). YET, in the context of the rest of the paragraph and the surrounding article it is clear that the message they want to convey is that recent reports on JWs have been lies. I think they purposely didn't come out and say it plainly because the facts of most media reports are readily availible to those who want to dig them up. Thier wording gives them an "out" to anyone who would discover the veracity of reports in the media.

So what were the comments from the congregation on these paragraphs? The intended message was definetly recieved. One brother who was from England mentioned the Panorama episode and told how shaken some of the publishers were over it. Many didn't want to go out in service for a few weeks until it calmed down. Yet he went on to relay how a householder said: " I saw that episode and knew that these acusations had to be lies - you people are just not like that". In conclusion he commented how Satan controls the media and will cause them to spread lies about JWs.

Another comment alluded to programs that aired in America. Again it was stated that the program contained nothing but lies against 'Gods people' and these lies are to be expected.

So the subtle message of the WT article was recieved (at least by some) as intended - believe nothing that portrays JW's in a bad light.

I personally felt that some may have doubts to the claim that its all lies. There were not allot of hands raised like there were in the other paragraphs. Those who did comment were obviously not informed whatsoever. Nor was there any discussion about the supposed lies away from the meeting (as I have heard before when there have been TV programs about JW's). I think most feel uncomfortable about the who issue and wish it would go away. I think the availibility of info on the internet has hindered the WT propaganda machine. Maybe thats just my wishful thinking though.

30

Newbie question about the NGO story

by gcc2k in

i've seen the reproductions of evidence in the ngo story.. let's say i was to discuss this matter with a local friendly elder.

i imagine that the following criticisms would ensue:.

1) that is not a real letter sent by the society (saying it was just for a library card, or as the version from portugal said, to gain favor in certain nations).. 2) the reply from the librarian at the un saying that becoming an ngo is not a requirement for a library pass is not real.. my main concern is with the latter.

FreeWilly

What did the WT have to gain by becoming an NGO? - Legitimacy and leverage

I believe the WT "showed their hand" in the first few days of the scandal. I think it was the Portuguese branch that answered inquiries with a letter that listed some benefits JWs worldwide might receive in the human rights arena. The Awake! article (that was apparently submitted to the UN in fulfillment of the NGO requirement to "Promote the interests of the UN") was about the Human rights aspects of UN programs. Considering the backlash JW's have undergone particularly in former Soviet republics, it would be advantageous for the WT to use its leverage as a UN affiliate. Many of these countries are seeking acceptance in the world community. Human rights is definitely a issue for some of them. UN membership gives the WT a legitimacy and a voice that these countries may be compelled to listen to.

WT has made moral compromises before. When they were attempting to gain acceptance in Bulgaria the modified their position on Blood transfusions to make it appear that there would be no sanctions against JWs who opted for a transfusion. This shows me that getting registered in foriegn countries is pretty important to them.

Becoming a registered religion is definitely advantageous to WT. Aside from the tax benefits, it cuts down on the cost of distribution of literature and organizing assemblies. Also they can proselytize more publicly. There are probably other benefits that we aren't aware of.

But If you ask me, this is what UN membership buys for them - legitimacy and leverage.

30

Newbie question about the NGO story

by gcc2k in

i've seen the reproductions of evidence in the ngo story.. let's say i was to discuss this matter with a local friendly elder.

i imagine that the following criticisms would ensue:.

1) that is not a real letter sent by the society (saying it was just for a library card, or as the version from portugal said, to gain favor in certain nations).. 2) the reply from the librarian at the un saying that becoming an ngo is not a requirement for a library pass is not real.. my main concern is with the latter.

FreeWilly

Try to get them to commit first. "If these accusations were true, do you see how someone would think the WT was hypocritical?" or "You think these accusations are fabricated - why, whats so bad about joining the UN?" If you can get them to take a position before introducing them the evidence then maybe they won't be so quick to back-pedal once they have the evidence. Either way its a real long shot.

If they still doubt it, call the UN info line (the number is listed Randy's website) and ask them to send you an information packet - to the JW's address. Let them get it in the mail!

PS... Hi RHW -Nuetrino

9

Dating dilema - help!

by FreeWilly in

ok here's the deal.

(girl # 1) i've gone out with this one woman for the past couple of weeks - probably 5 times total.

i have a great time as does she, but i really don't want a relationship right now.

FreeWilly

Well I have a whole range of opinions here. Thanks!

OK, I think I'm gonna go with Robyn, Joanna, and Xena with a twist of LB. You girls sound reasonable, and LB seems to always be 'on the money'.

I'll see # 1 this week. I'll let y'all know how it turns out. I just want to make sure she makes the right "assumptions" from the get go.

JH, I'm not really trying to "Run two at once" I really don't want to get involved with anyone too heavily. I just think it would be nice to go out on the weekend with someone other than my buddies at work and meet new people. But if their not of the same opinion I guess i need to find out.

9

Dating dilema - help!

by FreeWilly in

ok here's the deal.

(girl # 1) i've gone out with this one woman for the past couple of weeks - probably 5 times total.

i have a great time as does she, but i really don't want a relationship right now.

FreeWilly

OK here's the deal.

(Girl # 1) I've gone out with this one woman for the past couple of weeks - probably 5 times total. I have a great time as does she, but I really don't want a relationship right now. I want to be single and not get too dependant on anyone in particular. I would like to continue to go out with her but not necessarily exclusively or if it's going to cause her to get too attached and hurt her down the road.

(Girl # 2) Also there is another girl I asked out to dinner. She is nice too. Again, I not interested in anything too deep right now, but I'd like to get to know her as well. So my dilema is...

Should I tell Girl # 1 that I don't want anything serious so she if she discovers I have dated someone else it won't be a big deal? (keep in mind telling her could make it awkward between us thereafter)

- or -

Should I just do as I please and "cross that bridge when it I get to it" since we have only gone out a few times and there's no commitment implied at this stage? (she actually mentioned she was "commitment phobic" on our 2nd date but I'm a little worried about her getting attached despite this) Afterall I may not like #2 and would hate to blow it with #1 for nothing.

-or-

Should I abandon the whole concept of casual dating and date only one person at a time ? (which is too much like a commitment for me) In my mind I wouldn't mind if I found out she went on another date.

My neighbor is her best girl-friend so she will likely find out eventually if I dated someone else. My neighbor (her friend) also dates casually so I kinda think #1 would be OK with it too.

OK Fire away

34

Origin of Hydrogen

by Satanus in

most elements on this earth were made inside stars.

stars fuse the lighter elements into heavier ones.

stars, in turn, are born from hydrogen clouds, generally called nebulae.

FreeWilly

Hi guys,

<<uranium releases energy when split because the produced nuclei are more stable (have less potential energy). same is true for the fusion of hydrogen for instance. the resulting nuclei have less potential energy...hence energy is released by their creation.>>

I thought the actual mechanism of energy release during fission was described earlier. The radioactive stability of an atom is not related to the energy released during fission. They are actually 2 different forces. Stability has to do with Radioactive decay. This is an energy release mechanism, but it results from the "weak nuclear force" which is in a completely different catagory from the energy released during fission. During fission the mass/energy difference from the original fissile material (U235 P239 etc.) and the resulting fission product is the source of the energy release. Basically it take more "binding energy" to hold a big nucleus together. The nuetrons and protons donate some of their mass in order to hold it all together. With large atoms they must donate proportionally more of their mass. For example, if you split them in half the resulting two atoms formed will require proportionally less mass/energy to be donated from the protons and nuetrons in the nuclei. So you have a surplus of energy that gets released in various ways - heat, kinetic, photons etc. Basically it take less combined energy to hold the two smaller atoms together than it takes to keep one big atom together. Thats why splitting certain atoms yield tremendous energy.

If you look at E=MC2 you can see that the Mass (M) part of the equation is only = to the Energy (E) part of the equation if you multipy it by C (the speed of light) squared! So the fact that the protons and nuetrons donate mass in an atom is really significant. Mass is really a super condensed form of energy.