Posts by Abaddon

i am shocked at the many accusations against jehovah's witnesses in this forum.. i know that i am young, but most of my family are jws and they are good people and i love them.

even my worldly family is very nice and i do not shun them.

the friends in the hall are very nice also.

SexyTeen, remember, if you assume for a moment that we are right, and that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a 'High-Control Group' (I'm avoiding the use of the word 'cult', as it is emotive, and can result in the conversation getting bogged down in semantics), then people who are Jehovah's Witnesses are not always acting like themselves (the warm, loving, caring people you know), but can under the right circumstances act like a member of their religion.

This might not be a bad thing, but, because of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, it can often have bad results.

Look at the Blood Transfusion issue for example; there is now a lot more leeway and scope for personal conscience than there used to be. It used to be if you had blood, you were disfellowshipped. Check the CD-ROM's of the Watchtower for details, going back as far as you can.

Now, the doctrine has changed. Why? The Bible certainly hasn't. And people claiming the authority to decide WHAT the Bible means, if they are not sure, should let an individual's conscience decide. But they do not. Someone can have a transfusion of certain blood products now, and remain in good standing, when ten years ago, they would have been disfellowshipped.

It's even more striking when you look at transplants. It is now a matter of conscience. It used to be a disfellowshipping offense. Look in the CD-ROM. In older publications, they even say that a heart transplant patient could take on the personality of the donor. JW's at the time could not exercise their conscience, but had to follow rules, rules that were changed because...

... people changed their minds.

And what of those that died before they changed their minds?

Going further back, vaccinations were also once prohibited.

So, say we are right, and the JW's are a high control group. One of them refuses certain blood products for their child, because it is against the rules, although their heart cries out for them to let them proceed.

Now, should we be mad at the person? No. They are in a high control group.

Should we be mad at the believer? We have a right to, if we don't agree. What if the next Watchtower said that the treatment the child needed was now a matter of conscience? Because someone changed their mind...

So when you see anger directed at the Witnesses, realise it is very rarely at a person, and if it is, would probably be there under any circumstances given the history. Realise the anger is directed at the believer, the member, the 'cultist'.

All my family apart from me are Witnesses. They've treated me very well since I stopped going to meetings. My father and two brothers are Elders, their sons are all, bar one 21 y-o and a teenager baptised.

I love them very much, but sometimes they do things I think are wrong. If it's got something to do with their beliefs, then it's sensless getting mad at them, because I believe it is not their fault, they are following the rules... rules that change...

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

17

Are there any scholars in the society?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

i was having quite an intense disscussion (ok, argument )with some of my family last weekend.. my brother said in answer to some points that i raised , that the society has scholars who do research and will have the answer to my questions.. i said i know of no sholars in the society, he said thats because the world does not recognise them as such.what i ment (but did not continue saying as the conversation changed direction , again) was that the people who do research and study for the society arent really scholars as they are not free to look for the real truth only to confirm what the society says.their skills are really knowledge of the societies beliefs.. well it is true that a scholar is just someone who has a great knowledge of a particular subject.so you could argue that the society does have scholars as they are people with great knowledge of the organistaions rules .but what must people would mean my scholars are people who put a great deal of time and effort into research and study of an issue as to whether it is true or false, real or make believe.. can the society have scholars in that sense?.

well a recent watchtower article stated that we could not even have private opinions on bibles matters.. in order to research whether a certain witness view point was valid or not you would have to entertain the idea that a certain viewpoint could be wrong.

but this would put you at odds with the society , as you cannot think differently even privately your own opinions on bible matters.

Abaddon

What we have, ladies and gentlemen, is an oxymoron.

Jehovah's Witness Scholars

If we refer to biblical, historical, and scientific fields, if is safe the say that the requirements for being a scholar - as mentioned before, objectivity being quite essential - and the requirements of being a JW (acceptance of GB as last word), are almost always mutualy exclusive.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Abaddon

Yerusalyim;

"we've already established that by the Geneva Convention these guys are NOT POW's, they don't fit the requirements"

"We've" as in the US, not as in a "suitable tribunal", which is what should decide the status of prisoners whose POW status is in dispute, according to the Geneva Convention, as I mentioned in the very same post you were responding to.

You've already made accusations about those disagreeing with you being uninformed once, and were proven to be wrong when you made them.
Now you don't even bother to read the posts, let alone address the other issues raised.

I am still waiting for someone in favour of the prisoners being held to address the issues raised in this thread arguing that this is unwise.

Please could someone do that? Rather than ignoring previously made posts or making unfounded accusations?

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

54

I Went in Field Service Yesterday!!

by Valentine in

jw
friends

i must say i thoroughly enjoyed doing streetwork for the first time in my life!!.

it was really cold here in chicago yesterday,snow clouds looming in the sky.

about 10 am i decided to run home for my cofee break.. as i rushed down the main street,walking quickly,i saw 2 groups of jw's w/ their mags on the main street near home.. i haven't seen any around my territory since last spring.. humph i thought.. i double-timed it home,bundled up,grabbed my stacks of silentlambs posters and ran back to the main street.. i stood on the corner,several feet ahead of them and started saying hi to passers by.

Abaddon

Kudos Tina, that rocks...

Gawd, could this be the start of something?

In any major urban area they'd be enough of 'us' to completely rain on any meeting for field service.

We could use sandwitch boards, testimony cards, portable CD players, and sound cars!

"Alert! Jehovah's Witnesses are in your neighbourhood. Answer the door to an unknown caller at your peril."

Or knocking on doors they've just called on and made a placement...

"Hello there, sorry to bother you, but the people who just called on you are under the influence of a cult. Obviously your capable of drawing your own conclusions, so here's a leaflet we've prepared to counter many of the claims made by Jehovah's Witnesses."

Howabout chucking a few thousand leaflets out of a plane over a DC stadium?

"You might be a 'sheep', but that doesn't make you immune to having the wool pulled over your eyes! Please read this leaflet; if you have the truth, an A5 leaflet dropped out of an aeroplane isn't going to take it away from you. If you haven't got the truth, then we think you should know."

All we have to do is figure out an 'unbaptising' ceremony, and we're cooking!

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Abaddon

Yerusalyim: POW's should be kept in the same conditions as soldiers of the side holding them in captivity are kept in when they are. This is in the Geneva Convention, unless Amnesty International are wrong and you are right.

You also seem ignorant of the part of the convention that says prisoners who status as POW's is in dispute should be treated as POW's until a suitable tribunal rules on their status.

As you start making comments about 'haven't read an informed opinion yet', and immediately make statements which show you to be the uninformed one, I suggest you button it until YOU have informed opinions, as it makes you look silly; sorry to be blunt, but you reap, you sow, it's fair. If you don't want to be talked to like that, don't talk like that.

Oh, for those who are interested, the prisoners in Cuba are being kept in 6' x 8' wire cages, open to the elements. The TV pictures I saw seemed to show about five prisoners in each cage. Yeah, that's REALLY the same conditions as US Millitary personnel receive in Millitary Prisons.

Cellomould makes some excellent points regarding the background story, but it's not one many Americans seem interested in... and Cello, I don't think people are thinking, they are being emotional.

jelly; the point you bring out about America not respecting International law is not new to this thread. Read my previous post and answer this question regarding breaking International Law;

And as long as the most powerful country in the world does that, how can it point the fingre at those that do the same? How can the world progress politically unless it is recognised that the arguement of greater good is a moral minfield that should not be crossed?

And still, the questions that have been raised by those who object to the prisoners being kept in Cuba and not defined as POW's are unanwsered in the flurry of lynch-mob opinions and justification...

If you guys have such a strong case for being right, why don't you make it?

Might is not right, and the USA HAS to learn this for World politics to develop, and the USA HAS to learn it shares the same fucking planet as the rest of us, and can share the same International Laws, and pretending POW's are not POW's or that CO2 is not a pollutant only makes them look silly...

I refer all to my previous comments about me not attacking peoples' worth or integrity for holding opinions I think suck. I disagree with you, I don't think you are bad people because I disagree with you.

Let's keep this a discussion and stop it developing into a flame war...

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

120

Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

just a quick thought - i am a firm believer in freedom of speech etc, but having been on this forum for some time i honestly can't say that i can introduce a doubting jw interested in true christianity to this board.

some of the deep discussions on jw doctrine are excellent, but everything else seems to be nonsense in my opinion.

why can't this site be more like the old www.witnesses.net which seemed to have more spiritual meat rather than backbiting, gossip, and rumour and even obscenity.. sorry for my frank opinion

Abaddon

aC; Basically you are saying (with scriptual support) that god has deliberately hidden the truth.

Basically you support the 'secret decoder ring' attitude of many religionists, that there are secrets buried within the text that only the select can understand.

How can this be if god is desirous none are destroyed? How can a loving god, essentially play games with the truth?

If god cares and loves us so much, why is information that could convince millions of people as to his existence hidden from view, so well that many people who are sincerely looking never find it?

It is not an Agatha Christie mystery we are dealing with here. It's people's lives. I find the idea of god playing games like that incomprehensible and morally repugnant. If it were true, it is elitist, deceptive, manipulative, and causes much unhappiness.

I'd far rather believe that this is just a twisted human idea, rather than the idea of any god.

You might not agree with me, but I'd like to see your reasoning justifying god's actions, if you believe in this 'doctrine of obscureness'.

You might immediately say "God doesn't have to justify his actions, he's god". Wrong. Just 'cause he's god doesn't make it right. And I thought that the past 6,000 years were to show God is justified in exerting Sovreignty over Humans, or do you have a view of that?

You see, looking at it from a slightly different angle, assuming god is real, the story is like this;

God creates humans.

God tells them they can do anything but THAT.

Satan decides he wants power, talks to Eve.

Eve does THAT, followed by Adam.

God is pissed, punishes Adam and Eve with eventual death to them and their offspring.

Some sort of divine wager is set up, whereby God says "Okay, if you know what to do, you do it, and we'll see if it works, and whether I tell the truth or whether the snake told the truth".

However, God had already taken away one thing that would help it work, eternal life, and added disease, and at various point where humans did get organised (Tower of Babel), immediately knocks it back down again

He then has a book written, hiding proofs that if stated clearly would mean that everyone would believe in God as a matter of course.

The fact that the book was so vauge it contributed to huge confusion of religions, as well as people not actually believing in God becasue all the evidence was hidden, is a clear sign of playing ineffable little games. If the truth hadn't been hiden, more people would have the truth, and would be happier, so god hiding the truth makes people unhappy.

To me, it looks like God in this scenario is playing a nasty game. He sets up a test that he knew they would fail, punishes them for it, and then, knowing the punishment sabotages any attempt at humans governing themselves effectively, sets them that as a test, to show whether he was right or whether Satan was right.

But, having done that, he doesn't let alone; Babel is a clear example of god breaking his own rules; the game was seeing if humans could govern themselves, when they do WHAMO!

I tell you quite seriously, if that is the 'truth', I'm pissed with god, he doesn't play fair, and that means God is a despot, the Bible is propoganda, and Satan is a freedom-fighter.

Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I don't seriously believe the above, it's just a clear trail of logic based upon beliefs I regard as silly, on the basis of where they logically end up. It's far more likely god doesn't exist than anything that absurd being true.

But I would like to see some refutation of the apparent unreasonableness of hiding the truth.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

36

Where were you when you first came here?

by Xena in

jw
friends

i noticed in a couple of threads people discussing the impact this board would have on jw's with doubts coming here and reading the messages.

it got me to wondering where most people that post here were at...what stage in their jw/ex jw process...when they started reading and/or posting here.

also curious, when you did come here what was your main focus?

Abaddon

I was at work, like I am now...

Actually, I had done my spell as a newbie ("What do you mean it's a cult?") at Tishie's place from about '96 or '97, so came here as a battle hardened xJW, without major issues, who simply likes hanging round and chewing the fat with people who I have something in common with, and maybe helping others like I was helped by others.

I'm English, but I live in Holland, and my Dutch is poor, so to an extent the board is a social surrogate too.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

24

How Big a Liar Are You?

by Mindchild in

jw
friends

it seems nothing gets the good people in here so upset as lies.

we all seem to be extra sensitive to lies and damned lies because of being victimized by one of the biggest lairs around, the wts.. but have you ever really tested yourself to find out if you are really snow white yourself?

you got the guts to find out?

Abaddon

I'm a Saint...

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Abaddon

This is great...

WOULD SOMEONE IN FAVOUR OF HOLDING TALIBAN/AL-QUAEDA PRISONERS IN CUBA PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!

So far, all I've heard from them is bait-and-switch tactics, asking viewpoint questions to justiy their stance. And failing miserably, but that's just my opinion...

Please, check out the previously provided link for Amnesty International. The US Government are making a big mistake. They are clearly either violating International law, or intentionally making a mockery of it. They are making propoganda for the extremists by flouting their own standards in the treatment of prisoners.

To assert "...these are prisoners of war and as long as they are not being tortured then that's all they need to expect" is incorrect (sorry Richard, not picking on you, the others on your side of the debate are just as wrong). Please see the follow extract from the Geneva Convention.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

The bolds are mine...

The Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war from;

Article 3.1(a)
Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

And what is a prisoner of war?

Article 4.A (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Now, the USA are saying they are not prisoners of war. If you read the Geneva convention, you can see they have, from my layman point of view, some avenues they could squirm out of if they want to go that way. Amnesty International disagree, and are quite firm on their POW status.

Fortunately the Geneva Convention takes such despute into account, and under Artcle 5 awards prisoners of a disputed status full POW rights until otherwise determined by a 'competant triubunal' http://web.amnesty.org/web/news.nsf/WebAll/EC3FAE6D4DD4F46C80256B42005A1B5F?OpenDocument

But the operative word is 'squirm'. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. These people are prisoners, taken in a armed conflict that has been termed by the President of the USA a war, but it needn't even be a declared war for the provisions to apply (check the Convention), so one has to question the wisdom and motives of holding people in a position where they can be done with as the Millitary and the Government see fit.

Chief in this is probably the desire to be able to interrogate people for information beyond 'rank, name & serial number', which is all that a POW is obliged to give.

Cellomould makes some excellent points on this, so, the question to ask yourself, is whether it is in the 'greater good' to deliberately flout or circumvent international law that applies to the situation in the hope of getting gain.

If the answer is 'yes', then you are using a similar chain of logic to that used by the planners and participants of 911.

They did what they did for their version of the 'greater good'.

Now, I do not for one moment think that there is a comparison other than in the logic used.

Obviously trying to gather information about these people is far less morally repugnant than an attack on thousands of citizens.

But it is still flouting International Law out of some belief that it's okay because there is a 'greater good'.

And as long as the most powerful country in the world does that, how can it point the fingre at those that do the same? How can the world progress politically unless it is recognised that the arguement of greater good is a moral minfield that should not be crossed?

I think my opinion is clear, and I think I have given good backing to my opinion. If someone of the opposite side of the debate wants to try and back their opinions and answer questions that have been raised as to the correctness of the US's actions, go ahead. But I'm not interested in just reading 'I think it's right'.

I want you to justify your opinons, and all I've heard is a desire for vengence.

And vengence and justice are not the same thing.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...