Posts by BackseatDevil

101

org is dying

by lambsbottom in

i don't understand why so many ex jws and faders think that the jws will continue to grow and thrive as a religion.

i still attend a meeting once a week and you can smell the death of the religion creeping up when you hear the talks, read the study wts and hear the letters from the gb.

the way the organization has changed is a sign that it reached its peak (in "healthy" membership) long ago.

I was just writing on anther thread about how the JWs are an excellent model for how needy people function to their own detriment. They NEED a god and a savior, they NEED an organization, they NEED a faithful and discreet slave, they NEED a governing body, they NEED food at the proper time, they NEED discipline, they NEED an elder body, etc., etc., and more needy etc.

Whenever a person or organization is that needy, they are focused only on themselves, no one else. It is impossible for anyone in that state to better the world around them (other to unite people against their siphoning resources). There is no good that can be produced from them directly... and as the years go by without Armageddon, spiritual fulfillment no longer comes with a few choice scriptures and a NEED for more prayer.

People are more intelligent, they can look up ANY information at any time. The history of how the bible was written is getting clearer and with fewer arguments among historians. The growing trend of thinking about the world as a whole (whether recycling or electric vehicles) may seem futile in the long run (and maybe it is) but it forces people to think globally... even if it's just for a few, pretentious moments.

Jehovah's Witnesses can't compete in the long run. They are not as laughable as the Mormons, but the oldest standing Christianity, taken by Paul to Rome and built into what will later be the Catholic church is almost 2000 years old. Jehovah's Witnesses are barely over 100 years old. There is no telling how many thousands of Christianities have risen and fell in the past two millennia. Remember, JWs are just one survivor of a four-headed schism itself. It's a byproduct religion... and like thousands of religions before it, it will run its course. However long it takes is irrelevant... they aren't any closer to the truth then they were a century ago, and they certainly aren't any closer than those of stronger substance that have fallen before it came into existence.

56

Kicking the "Gay Habit" at the IC

by breakfast of champions in

heard from a reliable source that this was part of friday's program.

they even interviewed a "former gay man" who "kicked the gay habit".. evidently kicking the "gay habit" is difficult, not unlike quitting smoking or avoiding sugary snacks.

the persons who related this to me found the whole thing to be laughable at best, but honestly seemed quite disturbed by it (which is good!

BackseatDevil

They are not talking about what people do in bed. They are talking about what people do in LIFE. The "gay habit" is reduced to a sex act, completely avoiding equal right movement, the Stonewall riots, and every activist that was attacked, beaten and killed in the line of duty just so that we, in 2014, can stand up on their shoulders and not be ashamed about who we are... IN PUBLIC everyday life... not in the bedroom.

The minimalizing of what it means to be gay to just what happens in the bedroom is not just a dampening of natural human tendencies (which is psychologically damaging and aids in internal destructive emotions)... it's a war on culture.

MY culture.

31

Does the GB claim the sole power of scriptural interpretation?

by DATA-DOG in

what are the best quotes, old and new about this mystical power?

i just had a " come to jesus " talk with my wife.

.

BackseatDevil

(Reminds me...)

I want to add that both Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints (which both believe their interpretation of the bible is the only true interpretation) practice two forms of argument that is not readily seen in other religions.

The first is provenience of divine literature. The LDS believe that the Book of Momon (etc.) was granted through direct communication with god. Subsequent literature is as well. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the same regarding each of their publications from the start of their movement. The “Life – How did it Get Here, By Evolution or Creation” book uses decades-old science references and an inclosed mentality that is so easily proven wrong, it's almost laughable that it's still in print. Yet they (like the LDS) think that this book is divinely granted to them to read, study, and share... BY GOD.

No other religion readily does this. The most popular publications in all of fundamentalism history, the Chick Tract series, is not written by direct communication with god, but is inspired by a literalism view of the bible. In fact, in may works of literature that is granted approval by use in religion is the result of the word of god inspiring such writing, not god himself.

The second thing they both do is use the “at least we're not THEM” argument as a method of proving that they are the right path to salvation. Now, many fundamentalist groups readily point out the faults of other paths, but they shy away of condemning other religions as a general acceptable form of persuasion... mainly because it's a lame argument that doesn't actually prove anything. The Catholic church does not say “look at all the harm the Baptists do regarding _____” as a means of skirting around child abuse scandals, for example. The finger-pointing, fault-finding, and tearing down of other people's faiths as a method of “proving” their own validity is something done on a personal level and sometimes a perish level, but NOT as a general practice from church leaders. And both these religions practice this method of “clouding” and “deflection” when it comes to bible study universally.

So with all this, you would be hard pressed to convince me that whether a person's salvation is on heaven or on earth is of any real importance to the discussion.

****

A word about the first century Christians. There were several forms of Christianity, all squabbling among themselves... very much in theme with latter part of this thread... LOL.

The Gospel of John and the three letters clearly form one version of Christianity of the separatist church. Mark, and later Matthew dealt with a different form of Christianity, one that sought to reconcile their heritage and their beliefs – Jesus didn't replace the Law, he improved upon it. Jews could follow the Law as a means of personal culture (Gentiles did not) but follow Jesus as a means of spiritual enlightenment. Thomas took another (closer to Gnostic) form of Christianity east to India and Asia. The Gnostic faith was spreading in the south of the Levant region as well. There was a Christian faith spreading among the Jews in Egypt (not too much is known about them) and the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8:26-40 would have taken another form of Christianity to Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. Similar with Babylon. And Paul had his form of Christianity that became present in Rome.

So when you talk about the first century Christians, you have to understand that they were no better off than we are right now... tons of different factions all believing different shades of the same story. It took a political power (Constantine) NOT a godly power to formulate the Christianity we know today including the bible canon the JWs and LDS swear by.

76

Is it wrong to mock and ridicule the Watchtower Society?

by yadda yadda 2 in

jw
friends

robert j ingersoll on the great voltaire:.

"it has been claimed by the christian critics that voltaire was irreverent; that he examined sacred things without solemnity; that he refused to remove his shoes in the presence of the burning bush; that he smiled at the geology of moses, the astronomical ideas of joshua, and that the biography of jonah filled him with laughter.

they say that these stories, these sacred impossibilities, these inspired falsehoods, should be read and studied with a believing mind in humbleness of spirit; that they should be examined prayerfully, asking god at the same time to give us strength to triumph over the conclusions of our reason.

BackseatDevil

@scotoma

The problem is that most of the people on this board at one time actually believed all of that and all the ridicule in the world wouldn't have changed their mind. And those who think ridicule and mocking is useful are merely relieving their own tension while not really emancipating anyone from their mental slavery.

How is this YOUR problem? (By "your" I'm meaning you in the plural, us all as individuals who visit this site.) Everyone is responsible for their own freedom. You can't teach anyone to let go of "mental slavery." You can explain around it, convey the concept, and LEAD BY EXAMPLE. But other than that, we all stand before whatever god, not god, being, universe, whatever on our own accord and NOT handing off the shoulders of others.

If you believe in god, you will be hard pressed to convince me that god would want that kind of person in his kingdom in the first place.

To ridicule the absurd is to put distance between two point. If we were at one time associated with the absurd, then we can further distance ourselves by overcompensating in ridicule... which could mean one of any number of things, or we could just ridicule in perspective... i.e. "man, I can't believe how stupid I was!"

Either way, what we WERE and what we ARE can be determined by how much we evolve. Of course when one FIRST gets free, they will overcompensate in ridicule. That's a natural reaction. How can you, or why should you take that personally? Unless you are part of the person's day-to-day life, their method of evolution is not really your concern. After that balanced out, there may be a period of bitterness. Again, natural reaction and shown by similar styles of ridicule. Looks the same and sounds the same, but are NOT the same.

Later, a family member, neighbor or the like could be hounding them about the absurd (belief in the bible or in god) in which case ridicule is presented out of frustration. Looks the same and sounds the same... but certainly NOT the same. Similarly, someone may have to face some sort of persecution for their non-belief system, atheism, or freedom from spiritual slavery. Exhaustion against the dense and ignorant would vent itself in ridicule. Looks the same and sounds the same... but again, NOT THE SAME.

On this and on other sites I have constantly explained that there is very little a person can gain with internet exchanges alone. This would be an example. All these different forms of ridicule look and sound exactly the same, and apparently people are all interpreting the same, linking them to the same category, and judging all ridicule the same. So yes, I can imagine it's irritating and overwhelming to some.

But again, how is this YOUR problem? The issue is in people's reason for expression, NOT your interpretation of such expression. The only generalized statement to make about ALL of these scenarios is: “Sometimes ridicule is helpful to determine personal distance, but it is not always a symptom of personal growth.” That's pretty much it. Not to be mean, but if a person or organization cannot understand the subtle differences in interpersonal communication and its motivation, then I doubt that person or organization will have the solution to help someone grow past ridicule and into a healthier realm. And if that person or organization doesn't have the answer, then they really shouldn't be concerned with those who ridicule, their opinions, or their method os evolution.

194

Atheism is a Belief System

by seekchristonly in

is atheism a belief system.

after all the atheist believes there is no god .so if that's the case then an atheist if a person of faith.

they have faith in the fact there is no god.

BackseatDevil

I'm atheist and I don't believe anything. So I have no belief system centered around a god or not god. My beliefs are based on what is. No more, no less.

It's like all spirituality are flavors of icer cream and you asking me what flavor of ice cream I like best...

... and me saying I'm lactose intolerant.

76

Is it wrong to mock and ridicule the Watchtower Society?

by yadda yadda 2 in

jw
friends

robert j ingersoll on the great voltaire:.

"it has been claimed by the christian critics that voltaire was irreverent; that he examined sacred things without solemnity; that he refused to remove his shoes in the presence of the burning bush; that he smiled at the geology of moses, the astronomical ideas of joshua, and that the biography of jonah filled him with laughter.

they say that these stories, these sacred impossibilities, these inspired falsehoods, should be read and studied with a believing mind in humbleness of spirit; that they should be examined prayerfully, asking god at the same time to give us strength to triumph over the conclusions of our reason.

BackseatDevil

They believe a talking snake ended a perfect paradise, the world is less than 7,000 years old, there was a global flood, God kills children by the masses, a man walked on water and raised the dead, and that the apocalyptic end to all humankind is at hand even though they have been waiting almost 2000 years for it.

BUT NEW INFOMATION SAYS IT'S ANY DAY NOW... again.

How can you NOT ridicule something like that? It's either point out their faults and learn from it or pity them... either/or.

Maybe both.

31

Does the GB claim the sole power of scriptural interpretation?

by DATA-DOG in

what are the best quotes, old and new about this mystical power?

i just had a " come to jesus " talk with my wife.

.

BackseatDevil

The LDS and the JWs are both sectarian fundamentalists of Christianity that take a literalist view of the bible that are less than 200 years old, formed in the United States of America during a time of growth, expansion, arrogance, and with animated evangelism follows a leader with a “new” interpretation of the scriptures granted to him exclusively by god.

This puts them in a position to be remarkably similar in their view of the ancient civilization in which the bible was written, taking it by-the-letter as inspired historical fact, and is reflected in current civilization with their arrogant refusal to budge on social issues of women's equality, homosexuality, and humanitarianism.

They are both believers in the strict adherence to the “last days” concept and apply such to their own lifetimes, whatever that lifetime may be. They are both hierarchical religions structured in the same format as the patriarchal families of the old testament and that of Paul's direction in the new testament. They do not necessarily resemble the first century churches as they were a mess filled with people who were trying to balance who they were as a people (Jews) and who they were as a faith (belivers in Christ). So the first century Christians were all over the place. Also, there were MANY forms of Christianity in the first century and each remained seperate for at least 200 more years.

Both the LDS and the JWs feel that their way is the only way to salvation, and that anyone that disagrees with them will die at Armageddon... which is due at any moment.

Structurally and systematically, they are pretty much the same religion. Dogmatic differences are many, but that comes with the invention of a new religion. They focus more on how they are different from everyone else and fail to see how similar they are. From an outside vantage, they are not. Yes, their belief may be different, but they function in the same format and the end result is exactly the same: Nice people who appear to do good, but drowning in a sea of self-superiority with the “fact” that they are the one true religion.

There is nothing new under the sun... and these two barely toddler religions on the world's scene are hardly exceptions.

20

Today is Father's Day in the US

by leaving_quietly in

it is one of those holidays jws do not celebrate.

there is no reason for it.

it is not a religious holiday.

BackseatDevil

I wrote this on my Facebook:

"Ever since I was a child, the only thing I've ever wanted to do was direct movies. Today, over three decades later, I live with the end result of parents not supporting their children, doing everything in their power to ensure we were not happy.

You see, their god didn't want his followers to experience joy on their own terms... being happy on one's own meant god wasn't necessary for fulfillment of life.

My father parted from this world with a most decent and accepting way regarding me... honorable and borderline sacrilege. For that, I will gladly bear the sins of my father realizing that our own sins are weight enough to take with us to the grave. There is no need to add excess baggage to that burden. His final lesson was certainly one of his most noble.

Happy Father's Day."

31

Does the GB claim the sole power of scriptural interpretation?

by DATA-DOG in

what are the best quotes, old and new about this mystical power?

i just had a " come to jesus " talk with my wife.

.

BackseatDevil

I agree with leaving_quietly that the answer is "yes" with 'yes' being in quotations. It is one of those assumed rules, like donating for the magazines you take or not raising your hand to ask a question in the middle of the meeting. They are established social rules everyone silently agrees to that make the entire religion more of a closed-in community rather than a religion.

With 2nd and 3rd John they can then apply this closed community to exclusiveness as well. So not only do they have the only path to sole interpretation, but they can also view those who do not believe such as "antichrists" or, in their vernacular, apostate.

7

The WT Society taking child abuse more seriously now?

by adjusted knowledge in

with the constant reports of child sex abuse in the congregation from members who now will not be silent, i wonder if the wt will continue to change their policy in this matter.

they have made some adjustments compared to a decade ago.. .

i didn't even know about the case below.

BackseatDevil

The only way they weill ever, EVER be able to take child abuse seriously is NOT by inflating thier acts against the abuser, but rather, admitting they have ZERO training in matters of mental and emotional health and alloweing the child to go through outside therapy and recovery... WITH THE CONGREGATION PAYING FOR IT.

Everyone thinks that seriousness is in accordance with the perpetrator, but it's honeslty about the rebuilding of the child. A perpertrator should be handled one way - jail time and castration. A victim has to be handled uniquly and delicately. When they admit that they do not have the tools to do such (and we all know they do not) THEN I will consider them taking child abuse seriously.