TheOldHippie; Congratulations. It must be a weight off your shoulders, even though it was a big decision to take.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
57
Resignation - not that it matters at all, but ....
by TheOldHippie ini just wanted those kind-hearted, those gentle, those friendly ones of you to know that i wrote my letter of resignation as an elder yesterday, after having served in that capasity for 24 years.. those wishing to call me or any society "bastard", "sucker", "braindead" or anything, as they have before, i would ask please to refrain from that.
other comments would be welcome.. somehow, it is the armstrong quote about "one small step for man, one giant leap for humankind" (approximately) the other way around, "one giant leap for (a) man, one hardly noticeable step for humankind".. ok, that was that.
-
-
-
101
Who of you in this forum have been df'ed?
by YoYoMama inif it is possible can you post why you were disfellowshipped?
-
-
Abaddon
YoYo; looking forward to your reply...
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
7
Asteroid and the end
by Celia inhttp://www.msnbc.com/news/586894.asp?pne=msn .
wow !
it could have been the end of the world as we know it.... why do they take france as an exemple ?.
-
-
Abaddon
Celia; One of my best friends growing up was a Pharsee, and I thought I'd ask what you meant, as sadly, some people would have been serious about that.
What background do you have with the JW's?
LB; Ignorant is an entirely appropriate word, especially as contextually it was obvious I was not using the word as an insult;
Ignorant (adjective)
Obviously, there is a spectrum of knowledge in both such countries, but I think most people's (especially women's) level of education in Iraq and (especially) Afghanistan is rudimentary enough to describe them as ignorant, purely as an observation, not as a criticism.
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMEDsynonyms; ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
Your point is valid though LB, and taken well.
8-)
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
37
Abaddon - Re: WASPs
by borgfree inabaddon,.
i was going to answer your post in the thread where you posted but thought it better to not continue the discussion on that thread which was for a diferrent topic.. you say: quote: "yeah, all those wasp's working on railroads, and in restauraunts, and in poorly-paid factory jobs whilst the blacks, irish, polish, scandanavian, other non-anglo protestants, roman catholics and the latino's sat around in highly paid jobs benefitting from the sweat of the wasp's.... ... oh, no, sorry, it was the wasp's tending to sit around in highly paid jobs, whilst the roman catholics, blacks, irish, polish, scandanvians, other non-anglo protestants, and the latinos did the hard poorly paid jobs.... the wasp's built america?
like, yeah.
-
-
Abaddon
One initial question (I'll answer properly tomorrow when I make sure we are 'on the same page', as I am going off line now).
WASP means White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
In other words, it refers to people descended from English Protestants.
Properly WASP used doesn't refer to anyone else.
So, are you still saying that America was built by people descended from English Protestants?
Just wanna be sure we're using the same word for the same thing, as there is nothing sillier than disagreeing when one actually agrees, is there?
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
49
Brief Explanation
by joelbear inmy path needs to be revamped.. i do plan to have a serious discussion with elders and attend the kingdom hall.
where that will lead, time will tell.. i am not leaving mitch.
even if i did become a jehovah's witness and celibate again he would love me just the same and i him.. you cannot become ungay.
-
-
Abaddon
joel, what is the real reason for all this?
Come on, you know that the JW's do not have the 'truth'.
You know that you will be forced to agree in silence with doctrines that not only you have personal disagrement with for personal reasons, but have strong objections to for clear, substansive, more objective reasons. What did you say? "I believe in total honesty as a core value to my being".
Not only would you have to agree in silence, you might even have to say things that you do not agree with with. What did you say? "I believe in total honesty as a core value to my being".
You know your homosexuality is not something to 'struggle against' as a celibate, but is part of you, not some decision you can reverse, not a tattoo you got when you were drunk you can have lasered away. You know that god knows perfectly well it is part of the spectrum of behaviour, as any decent Biology undergraduate could tell you, and not an evil act. What did you say? "I believe in total honesty as a core value to my being".
I also have to echo the comments about the unlikilhood of a Body of Elders accepting back a celibate gay living with his formerly physical now platonic non-JW lover. Pigs will fly, and I doubt if you could sit through the number of meetings you'd have to sit through to get back in good standing before you realise that you're making a big mistake.
I think that you lack a degree of psychological toughness that allows you to view the dissent and arguement here in the correct light. You long for unity and concordance with all... yet the price for that is your soul, not some mystical thing that survives death, but the giving up of your freewill and self-worth. You lacking this toughness is a fact, not a fault, okay?
I think it is unbalanced to expect a discussion board to be a place of unity and concordance just because this is a particulary attractive part of the 'package' you were sold when you were younger that you still long for. Everyone is different, something the JW's find hard to accept, not even accepting an individual's conscience, putting instead in its place the Organisation's interpretation, which is often subordinate to the Organisation's interests rather than any interpretation of 'faith'.
This means that the unity is in fact a sham, and that many Witnesses carry on much as we do, accept they wear false little masks most of the time, keeping those thoughts private or whispered to a select few. You KNOW that that is true, but you want to go back? Let's find a scripture to suit THAT...
It would be better for you to get counceling so you do not over react to such discussions, or to learn to avoid unpleasent discussions if it provokes such a response in you, or not to come here. Each of these choices is better than giving up your soul (literally sacrificing it to false religion). You say you see "posters that I care about becoming more negative over time", For fucks sake man, care about yourself a little more, and less about others!
Do not seek to impose your beliefs ("I have always believed that the harsh words exchanged here between people are inappropriate for the seriousness of the discussion") on us, or 'disfellowship' us when we don't agree. You know both actions would be wrong.
As for "I do not believe that Jehovah's Witnesses should be mocked for their beliefs" - well, fine, don't do it. But don't set yourself up as a judge my friend, that way lies folly, even if you are right. People coming out of the Dubs NEED to laugh at the ridiculous nature of their former beliefs... it's a way of getting BETTER, and you wouldn't deny them health, would you?
I agree that sometimes sweeping statements are made that are ridiculous. Sometimes maybe victims are used as ammunition by some rather than considered first as victims. I agree sometimes people do let animosity cloud their thinking, and that this does reduce the effectiveness of their points, as it shows when they make their points, and validates the Witness expectation of people who have left. But these people are victims of a high-control group. I think we should give them a break.
But even given the occasional inacurate sweeping statement, does that REDUCE the truth of many specific statements that are made? Does that invalidate the beneficial FACT that the pressure exerted on the Organisation due to child abuse cases has probably lead to a reduction in the frequency of such things happening again?
If a public discussion board is not the place to make accusations or for victims to seek assistance, please tell me, where is such a place? In which town, on what street is this place where assitance is offered, how do they pay for people who don't live in that town to go there, what is this places 'phone number? There is no such place, and please realise by suggesting the ONLY places the victims get the listening ear they need and deserve are inappropriate, you are suggesting they stay silent, as there is no alternative. Is your nausea more important than their freedom to say what happened, maybe for the first time?
You say our animosity towards the Witnesses clouds our thinking about what is indeed true. Look at the phrasing and psychology of that sentence of yours. It is vauge, motivated purely by your internal desires for something 'to make it all better', not based in any way on any fact of doctrine of the JW's. Thus I ask, again, joel, what is the real reason for all this? I don't believe your reasons man, sorry to be hard, but I feel I would NOT be to you as I would have you be to me if I didn't say clearly;
I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING EVEN IF YOU DO, WHAT'S THE REAL REASON???
I think the root of the problem is that you have never accepted that the JW's are a high-control group. They're a stinking cult joel, if you'd ever understood or accepted that you'd cut your own tounge out for saying you're gonna go back.
Because of this, when people say negative things about Witnesses, you only see the persons, the individuals that fall under the description of 'Witness'. You don't see the cultists they are actually talking about.
You see, every JW you know is actually TWO people. The wonderful unique human being, and the cultist. You have the heart and compassion to see the real person under the cultist. Don't waste that heart and compassion by refusing to distinguish between the human being you can see and the cultist you know is there.
Example; my parents are warm, intelligent, truely wonderful human beings. However, under certain stimulus they would treat me like mindless, unreasonaing cultists, as they have been conditioned to react to certain stimulus in that way.
I don't rail against how unfair it is people say mean things about cultists who are really lovely people. I realise the cultist and the lovely person ARE TWO ASPECTS OF THE SAME PERSONALITY. It's almost like a psychiatric disorder.
So, quit the drama and the passionate posturing. Maybe the root cause is something YOU have to do something about. Maybe YOUR thinking need adjusting. Maybe you need to realise that the JW's are a high-control group. Maybe you have to let go of that elusive little vision JW's sell, that everything will be okay.
Like fuck it will. Life is awkward, unpleasent, difficult and nobody really knows what is going. It's turning it from this into something approaching a life that is important, finding the wonder and joy in it all, making it all worthwhile, that's what you should be doing, not getting stuck in the same space or going round in loops, or pointing the finger at others.
I hope you realise the day you appear on a platform at an assembly as an example of how someone can get out of the badness of the world, even though they were once (shocked voice) a "practising homosexual" (by now I'd think you would be quite good at it), is the day you do something you will NEVER be able to forgive yourself for, and that is the way you're heading.
Yes, all this is highly dramatic, but I am more than a little worried about and more than a little pissed off that you can sit there and type stuff I am damn sure you don't believe yourself, not really. You deal drama, well, reap it.
I might not agree with you all the time, but I've taken a liking to you, you have heart and a gentleness (even under severe provocation) that is admirable. As far as I am concerned, liking you means I get to bust your chops if I think you're being daft (and you have the same right in return). If I didn't care I wouldn't say anything.
Of course, you might really believe;
"There is a core truth there that cannot be denied. I sense it. I must reexamine it. I don't think anyone here can honestly dismiss it"
In a way you are right. It's a mind-sucking hiogh-control group that can blight peoples lives YEARS after they leave, as it has such a powerful influence on them. THAT'S a core truth, and YOU had better not dismiss it.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
7
Asteroid and the end
by Celia inhttp://www.msnbc.com/news/586894.asp?pne=msn .
wow !
it could have been the end of the world as we know it.... why do they take france as an exemple ?.
-
-
Abaddon
Sorry, were you trying to be offensive?
Or was that a joke in really bad taste?
Whilst you might have some beef against some political or religious leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan, I am sure you don't want an asteroid to drop on the poor oppressed, typically rather ignorant and deprived people of the country.
Oh, and if an asteroid that big hit, there would be major impacts on the weather worldwide, quite possibly for a number of years.
Be careful what you wish for...
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
37
"Stupid...Hateful..Evil.."?
by Englishman inat first glance, most people would say that there are lots of very good jws around.
ok, we reason, maybe they are a little misguided, but most of them mean well.
we particularly like to think that way about our friends and loved ones who are in the organisation, we dont want to regard them as being unkind and uncaring.
-
-
Abaddon
Interesting point, and one I'd not actually thought about before.
The high-control group 'norm' is for 'children' to to be 'stolen away' by the cult (I treat high-control group and cult as synonyms). The parents 'lose' their children.
In the Borg, it would appear that the reverse can happen too; the 'cult' 'steals' the parents (or at least can have a delitrious effect on the parental bond) from the children.
Lose your parents; be born a Witness and leave...
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
101
Who of you in this forum have been df'ed?
by YoYoMama inif it is possible can you post why you were disfellowshipped?
-
-
Abaddon
YoYo; "The UN thing is no-ssue."
No issue?
FACT: A part of the organsiational machinary of the Jehovah's Witnesses was registered as a United Nations NGO for almost ten years.
FACT: By doing so they agreed with the aims of the United Nations.
FACT: Before and during this period the Jehovah's Witnesses publications continued to identify the United Nations as the Scarlet coloured Wild Beast, an organisation standing in opposition to Jehovah's Kingdom.
FACT: Before and during this period a JW registering with a political or religious organisation for some fringe benefit would be disafellowshipped. Examples of this include, but are not restricted to, purchase of political party cards in Malawi (so they could work and shop), and joining the YMCA (to use a swimming pool).
FACT: The only justifcation given for this association was that it allowed the use of the UN library.
CONCLUSION: A double standard was operating, with the Organsiation itself taking part in an activity an individual would be disfellowshipped for. The arguement that the application to join was made when the criteria for associaton with the UN as an NGO were different, or that these criteria were not known is not a valid justification. Buying a political party card in Malawi or joining the YMCA did not include any agreement to agree with the aims of either the political party or the YMCA. The purchase of a political party card in Malawi was chiefly a money-raising scam, and the YMCA let anyone join regardless of whether they agree with the YMCA's aims.
YoYo; "By Evolution, do you mean the theory of evolution? What does theory mean?"
THEORY (noun)
I would draw your attention to definitions 3 and 5, which are most apt when using the phrase 'theory of evolution'. I should point out all you have is a theory, a theory of god, so let's not get silly with semantics.
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>FACT: We have the fossil record.
FACT: This is not complete; if you consider most carcassess of dead animals (for example) on the African plains disappear within a day (often within half an hour), bones and all, and that very few animals remains are fossilised today, it is actually surprising we have what we have.
FACT: What the fossil record shows is both a gradual change of species and change from one species to another. Not only are species transitions observed in the record, but transitions between entire phylums, like reptiles and amphipbians. The old creationist defence "there are no transitional fossils' is a lie, or a distortion of old quotations.
FACT: We do not know the exact mechanisms for change, but there are a variety of theories as to the mechanisms for change, and it is generally accepted that it is a combination of these mechanisms that results in change.
CONCLUSION: what we have evidence of shows that the creation account in Genesis is not an accurate representation of the development of life on Earth. The implication (that the Bible is not infallable and is just another man-made book) is far reaching, as no 'holy book' gives an accurate account of the development of life on this planet, so it is not just a case of the Bible being wrong, all claimed holy books are wrong, at least in this regard.
YoYo; "607BC - That's an easy one. It's basically Bible vs. Babylonian Historians. I pick Bible."
I'm no Bible chronologist. I suggest you look at 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered' or 'Crisis of Conscience' for details of the errors in the 607 date. 'Crisis' also shows many problems with the organsiation of the Jehovah's Witnesses; for example, that the problems with 607BC are well known, but the date is considered unreviasable due to the central place it holds in JW chronolgy, and worries of the knock-on effects of revising it. When 'the truth' is allowed to go unknown because it is inconvenient to the framers of policy, any claims as to being 'The Truth' are lost.
Over to you YoYo, I look forward to your attempt to refute the reasoning or facts regarding the association as an NGO, your attempts to prove the Bible provides an accurate creation account, and your defence of the lack of organsiational integrity shown by the 607BC issue.
Remember, truth does not need to hide or stop it's ears for feat of untruth. The Boreans investigated thoroughly when confronted with new teachings. Do not run away from addressing these questions. You won't fool me, and more importantly, you won't fool you.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
10
Ministers in Skirts an anadotal reply to AC
by clash_city_rockers ini found this great anadotal piece from my friends doug wilson and doug jones at cradenda agenda http://www.credenda.org/.
so here it is.. ministers in skirts.
by douglas wilson.
-
-
Abaddon
borgfree
"I think that those "EVIL" "WASPs" have built the greatest country to ever exist."
Yeah, all those WASP's working on railroads, and in restauraunts, and in poorly-paid factory jobs whilst the Blacks, Irish, Polish, Scandanavian, other non-Anglo Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Latino's sat around in highly paid jobs benefitting from the sweat of the WASP's...
... oh, no, sorry, it was the WASP's tending to sit around in highly paid jobs, whilst the Roman Catholics, Blacks, Irish, Polish, Scandanvians, other non-Anglo Protestants, and the Latinos did the hard poorly paid jobs...
The WASP's built America? Like, YEAH. Learn your countries history!!!
Clash; You are a twister of facts aren't you?
IW said;
The Bible has for centuries been used by fundamentalists to lend Godly support for the persecution of the Jews, the continued enslavement of Blacks in the Southern USA, and the putting down of women.
You said;Has the Orthodox Presbyerian Church or the Presbyterian Church of America or Westminster Seminary or Reformed Theological Seminary done anything to "thwarted the advancement of social issues regarding Jews, Blacks, and women." that you can document or are you just going to make slanderious claims against us christians with no case at hand .
You are now distorting the (very supportable, and let's not even go near Divine Mandate) assertion she made by adding the specific names of organisations, but making it appear as if she launched a specific attack on those organisations when she did not.You are the slanderer!! You know the word for that? Devil!
By their fruits you will know them...
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
251
space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.
by aChristian inthe watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
-
-
Abaddon
Clash; I believe in the Bible you fool... it exists, it's not something open to question. I however do not believe it is god's word, and have yet to see any arguement anywhere that changes this opinion.
However, even if I don't believe in the inspired nature of the Bible, I can point out when someone CLAIMING they are following the Bible is not in fact doing so according to my interpretation of the Bible. But I don't know what you know about literary analysis or close reading.
I'll give you an easy example; I don't have to believe the Wind in the Willows is a true story to point out someone's mistake if they said Toad was a weasel.
Calvanism is just such as case in point; you have not provided any scriptual backing for Calvanistic beliefs from the Bible when asked before, I'm sure you won't do it this time, and I doubt if you will do it, ever.
Why not? Because some Calvanistic beliefs are very hard to find in the Bible, and even you seem to realise that. So you don't answer questions and change the subject AGAIN. Is there no begining to your talents?
It's just like you either run away from scientific arguements when they exceed your capacity to cut and paste, or enter a loop where you re-iterate the same point, because you don't understand that it has already been refuted.
And how's about a little discussion about presuppositionalism? I still cannot believe you REALLY believe in this utterly barren school of apologetics, I think it's just part of your posturing.
But, as I've pointed out before, and as others have pointed out, there is no point in talking to you; you show no signs of really comprehending the arguements made or of really engaging in the debate.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...