Posts by Oubliette

41

Contacted by Royal Commission today

by umbertoecho in

firstly, thank you to anyone who is in support of this rc.

no one has shown anything but great interest and empathy for those who were abused.. i don't know who this simonsays character is though and i find him to be very rude and ignorant.

it takes all kinds to make the world go round i suppose.. today i was contacted by a staff member of the royal commission.

Oubliette

Umberto, that's fantastic. Keep us posted!

53

Just wrote my DA letter....

by dubstepped in

jw
friends

my wife and i planned on fading but the elders now want a shepherding call and we are just done.

i know that many play the game to try to stay in, but i'm not a game player and neither is my wife.

our families already shun us because we reached out to a disfellowshipped family member.

Oubliette

dubstepped: Our families already shun us because we reached out to a disfellowshipped family member.

Nothing quite screams cult as does behavior such as this!

dubstepped: We feel a mixture of relief and the desire to throw up.

What a graphic way to describe the mixed emotions you're feeling. Hang in there, it get's better.

16

Does the .Org have the gall to ignore the RC?

by Lemonp in

i have been mulling over the options that the wt has to take in regard to child abuse.

in my mind there are the following ones:.

1. overhaul their entire system, and apologize to all abuse victims.

Oubliette

They will have to make certain changes, which they will proudly announce as "New Light" as if they came up with it themselves.

The really need to get rid of the "Two Witness Rule" in relation to allegations of the abuse of minors. It's actually wouldn't be hard since the majority of JWs would accept any Nu-Belief that GB comes up with. But I think that even the GB members are convinced that "it's from Jehovah" and we have to follow it. When they lose enough money, they'll find a way to justify that that too "is from Jehovah" and they'll lose it.

Additionally, they need to instruct all elders to be mandated reports even when it's not required by law. I doubt they'll ever do that, but it is what should happen. Hell, even Dr. Monica Applewhite advocated that.

Also, they need to quit requiring that victims of sexual abuse face or confront their abusers. Again, I don't see how they'll justify it scripturally because it does come from their ever precious "book," but this policy, practice and procedure also needs to go.

The irony will be that if the WTBTS makes any of these changes it will be because they were forced to by secular authorities and upon the advice of a Catholic woman. Of course they'll still claim it was "New Light from Jehovah" and his alleged Holy Spirit.

If they GB told the average JW to eat a shit sandwich, they'd gladly do it with a smile!

19

Royal Commission needs to call GB to personally testify

by RedPillPopper in

the gb needs to be subpenaed to testify just like losch was.

the commission needs to subpena each one individually and make separate fines when each one refuses.

Oubliette

Didn't they try that with one or more of the GB members during the Unthank hearings a few years ago?

As I recall, the GB just ignored the subpoena.

Maybe someone here can find a link ...

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Oubliette

To the OP, maybe a better way to frame the issue is to say that it is unscientific to be dogmatic about things which can neither be proved nor disproved.

And yet, there remains this truth: There is no good reason to believe things about which there exists no evidence.

Consider what Bertrand Russell opined on the subject:

There can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true! … Either a thing is true or it isn't. If it is true you should believe it, and if it isn't you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't you should suspend judgment.
It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it's true.

Bertrand Russell Interview

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Oubliette

Morpheus: while I appreciate the teacher in you attempting to correct my spelling, thats a war long over and lost. If auto correct dosent catch an error im not going to either

Got it!

One of my best friends and fellow teachers has a coffee cup on his desk that reads, "I'm silently correcting your grammar."

I've not yet learned the subtle art of silent correcting.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Oubliette

FMF: Or does it just mean they have replaced ignorance with knowledge.

The answer to your rhetorical question is of course obvious. And yet knowledge is always provisional and contingent upon further data.

I like the way you expounded on the Carl Sagan quotes I posted.

Morpheus: Which is where the label "athiest" [sic] gets dicey.

Exactly my point. BTW, it's "atheist," not "athiest."

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Oubliette

Yet concerning the "gods" that have been worshipped throughout humanity's history, this statement by Stephen Roberts best sums up my position on the subject:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Oubliette

Carl Sagan had this to say about that:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. - As quoted in "Scientists & Their Gods" in U.S. News & World Report Vol. 111 (1991)

-

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. - Conversations with Carl Sagan (2006)

15

Does the RC have the names of the 1006 abused victims?

by Dumplin in

i've updated my jw wife on the highlights of the rc proceedings each day as they occur.

but tonight she said something that made my blood boil (which i am usually in complete control of).

she said something to the effect that victims need to not dwell on what happened and let it control their lives.

Oubliette

Great thoughts in the OP. However, you should know that there are not 1006 victims of sexual abuse by JWs in Australia, there are/were 1006 abusers identified by the WTBTS.

Many, perhaps even most, sexual predators abuse multiple victims. Also, there are no doubt many cases of abuse that were never documented by or reported to the elders.

These are important distinctions if one is to really grasp the magnitude of this problem.