Posts by LizO

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

@Londo111

On Ray Franz' book, I read it, but couldnt find anything significant in there other than the fact that the witness operations are not as smoothly running as one would expect after reading the shiny magazines.

Besides that, I think it's kind of ridiculous

- if someone thinks he is one of the annointed and has received Gods spirit,

- then goes through the ranks and heavily supports the religion for decades (if I remember well he himself wrote articles which later he and others heavily criticised)

but then all of a sudden - after being kicked-out - writes a book full of criticism. Either he supported a religion he believed was wrong and cruel (his description in the entire book). Or he is heavily overstating his critisicm. In any case, best case is he is incapable of sound judgement, worst case is he is bitter and dishonest.

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

@Giordano

I have no problems with the heat and didn't side-step any discussion. However, I already have the feeling that this forum might not be for me.

My feeling is that there is just too much anger and hatred in this room in contrast to calm and reasonable self-reflection on religion and life. After all, people should not forget that they once likely supported and advertized this way of living (especially true for elders, let alone people on the top of the food chain like Franz).

I undoubtedly see where the anger is coming from as I know the substantial explicit and implicit pressure which often arises within the organization. However, rather then taking this anger and shooting it back uncontrolled (and at times perhaps unfairly) to everyone who played a role in one's former religion (which might have been oneself in the past), one could point to specific and evidence-backed aspects.

For instance, you Giordano are mentioning a lot of things I find difficult to grasp, e.g.

1) Russel having a teenage misstress and Rutherford having several mistresses, things I have never heard before and where I am asking myself what your sources are and why apparently you place so much trust and confidence in them that you present those things as facts (I would guess it's difficult to assess 100 years later who slept with whom).

2) Discouraging of higher education: People in my congregation were never really discouraged. In fact, in the congregations I had been to there was a positive correlation between those going to university and those becoming ministerial servants/elders (perhaps having to do with hard working attitude)

3) You mention the low retention rate in the context with discouraging independent thinking. Those two things are contradictory, so you shouldn't mention them together. It's inconsistent.

I really have no interest in fights, because those things cost a lot of life energy. I am done with that. And if there is a substantial number of people here who want to express their anger and hatred by bashing everything without sound reason then have fun with that but I don't want to be part of that.

My objective on coming here was to recapitulate and go through some kind of chatharsis. However, perhaps I can't do that here since any kind of unreasonable/untrue accusations upset me, no matter against whom, and my personal assessment is that there is some amount of that in this forum.

@Iown Mylife

Mind control is really no important subject for me. Anyone in this world who wants to convince you of something or wants to sell you something in media ads will use some form of methods, either consciously or not, which can be attributed to belong to "mind control", depending on how you definet that.

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

Thank you all for your comments. My point at the end of the day is that based on numerous people in leadership I have come to know (including Bethelites)

I do understand

- that they at times can get carried away and let personal power thoughts influence their thinking

- that at times they turn their focus to things like financing the kingdom halls or putting focus on holding up traditions

But what simply not remotely fits my experience is that the leadership would

- delibaretely lie

- delibaretely try to make people suffer

Instead I have no doubt that they (meaning all leadership) truly believe in what they preach and are generally trying to meet their standards to the best of their knowledge/ability.

This is why I believe that it makes more sense generally turn discussions to content/logic of teaching/real-life behavior, rather than to question the motives or character of the whole leadership.

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

@terry

I really don't see the lying point. Leadership might be accused of intellectual dishonesty. But I can't see that they would be delibireately lying. Also, it would be extremely difficult to maintain that lifestyle and constant challenge if they really thought what they preach is a lie. I don't believe any person would (be able to) sustain that lifestlye if it didn't believe in it.

@punkofnice

You ask for an answer to your question. I thought I answered all questions. Which question do you mean?

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

@punkofnice

Of course it's worth it. While confirmation bias always plays a role, I still believe at times it's possible to overcome that. After all, when I personally deeply studied the Bible I did it to confirm my beliefs. The outcome was the opposite however.

You are not a liar. You just have some strong opinions that I don't see and this is why I ask you to explain them to me please?

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

@punkofnice

Regarding your statement " Firstly, I asked a question. I made no statement...". It's sad that you are putting out such questions and then you are ducking away. In that way, you are clearly stating and judging, but you are keeping yourself enough room to manouvre yourself again out of the issue. It's exactly the same technique the Watchtower uses to promote certain behaviour without explicitly telling you what you have to do.

On Warwick I told you, I don't see any connection to enjoyment of funds. They are moving the Bethel out of Brooklyn, most likely because with half the money they get from that they can build Warwick and the other half they can use for other activities. So, am I wrong?

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

@punkofnice: It's incorrect to say that I dont "accept" your opinion. You didn't ask me to "accept" it nor does anybody care if I "accept" it or not. I am just openly stating that I don't think there is any evidence for the specific statement you made and if you disagree I challenge you to provide the evidence.

If you like, please give me the evidence on 2 points you mentioned above:

1) Warwick as evidence on enjoyment of money

2) (Yes, I refer to the leaders) Which specific arguments/texts prove that the leaders are delibereately deceptive? Every single person on earth can be attributed to have used such things ("propaganda techniques", "logical fallacies") to sell thoughts which he/she honestly believes in.

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

@punkofnice

Of course everyone is entitled to his own beliefs and we don't need to repeat that constantly. This doesn't mean we shouldn't call out one another when we believe that something doesn't make sense. We should strive for correct and consistent argumentation. Can you please lead me through your logic why Warwick explains how they enjoy the money they raise?

@Xanthippe

You are correct that I am leaving. On the other points, I don't ask for any respect or so for any of these people. I simply know that it is plain false that the majority would have improper motives. So, it's just ridiculous in my mind if people would reitarate that as fact.

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

Let me roughly respond to a couple of questions/comments.

@punkofnice, honesty etc.: You are asking for examples of instances of dishonesty. Here are 2 very recent ones:

1) I believe your post punkofnice (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/256102/1/Were-Jehovahs-Witnesses-We-speak-out-in-fearlessness) is dishonest by claiming with subtle voice that Jehovas Witnesses would only preach where there is money. This claim is definitely wrong according to my experience. Do you really believe punkofnice that they are out there to raise money? And how do you think they enjoy their money then?

2) Every referral to "lies" (e.g. your last comment Julia Orwell) is wrong as well. People who know the organization and say that the leadership is deliberately saying false things is - as I believe - dishonest. However, it's more what stillin says: The people are not delibaretely deceptive but have convinced themselves.

This distinction I am stressing here is not semantics. It's a fundamental difference to understand whether people are deliberately cruel and liars or just overconvinced (perhaps wrongly) with their own understanding of matters. I believe it's just unnecessary and objectively wrong to assign bad motives to Jehovah's Witnesses and does not lead to a helpful discussion. It makes much more sense to discuss explicit and implicit doctrines and their effects on members.

@Xanthippe: You are worried that I do only know the surface. I can assure that is not the case having had close relationships over many years to various people including special pioneers, elders, COs, DOs and Bethel family.

@Julia Orwell: I do agree that a discussion and subsequent "catharsis" is good and healthy and that is my main reason for engaging here.

95

Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO in

hey people,.

as for myself, after extensive study i have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so i am not active anymore.

however, let me please add something to the discussions here:.

LizO

Hey people,

as for myself, after extensive study I have concluded that it's not possible for me to trust the bible and so I am not active anymore. However, let me please add something to the discussions here:

I find lots of things on this forum dishonest and distressing and certain accusations are straight-out ridiculous and illogical. Such kind of criticism does only strengthen whomever is in the organization because it weakens the reliability of arguments which indeed are valid. Examples for such intellectually dishonest criticism are that the organization would be full of

- bad intentions

- trying to squeeze money for personal interests

- cruelty

- trying to mind-control

Also, it's funny to read critiscm by people who use such a self-righteous and arrogant language/tone. I do believe you can critisize and should do so rather heavily and clearly then lightly. However it's straight out ridiculous critizing an organization for dishonesty and inconsistency by using arguments which are just that.

Anyone who has stayed a couple of years around there knows that the organization is full of good and at atimes wonderful people. Of course there are also lots of power/money-loving people too but they were in the minority everywhere I had been. Now, why not critizise the latter as well as any structures and culture which leads to bad outcomes without claiming at every single step that all of the leadership would have bad and cruel intentions?

Just my 2 cents if anyone cares ;)

Liz