Posts by Abaddon

84

Is homosexuality wrong?

by forgetmenot in

jw
friends

i know that the dub's view is that it is totally wrong.

i live in an area where the majority of people think it is wrong.

i don't think it is wrong (but i am not a homosexual).

Abaddon

rhett; I can't agree with all of your opinions (on other threads), but I do have to say I like your honesty.

30

My Dad sent me this; anyone got a sick-bag?

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

junk dubbie mail from my dear dad (who i have quite a good relationship with, as i can ignore stuff like this);.

subject: satan's convention----theme: "keep them busy".

satan called a worldwide convention.

This is bloody brilliant... my Dad will choke when I send him the jpegs! Haha! I'll do it completely straight-faced... "Dad, why are you sending me round rip-offs of other religion's tracts?". What fun.

Imbue;

After all you've been through; is this what your father thinks keeps you from being JW? Your to busy to go to the KH. umm! Does he know your an atheist?

As it stands my Dad knows I am not a JW because I disagree with their doctrines, and I've told him that I can't talk to him about it because his faith doesn't allow dissent, and I don't want to cause him a conflict. He's a cultist, I'm an adult. I have to be grown-up in this situation, as I could easily push his buttons and provoke a preconditioned response.

30

My Dad sent me this; anyone got a sick-bag?

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

junk dubbie mail from my dear dad (who i have quite a good relationship with, as i can ignore stuff like this);.

subject: satan's convention----theme: "keep them busy".

satan called a worldwide convention.

Abaddon

Junk Dubbie mail from my dear Dad (who I have quite a good relationship with, as I can ignore stuff like THIS);

**********************************************************************
SUBJECT: Satan's convention----Theme: "Keep Them Busy"

Satan called a worldwide convention. In his opening address to his evil angels, he said. "We can't keep the Witnesses from going to the Kingdom Hall. We can't keep them from reading their Bibles and knowing the truth. However, if they gain that connection with Jehovah, our power over them is broken, we have lost. So let them go to their Kingdom Halls; let them have their conventions and assemblies, but steal their time, so they can't gain that elationship with Jehovah. This is what I want you to do, angels: ‘Distract them from gaining hold of Jehovah and maintaining that vital connection with him throughout their day!’

"How shall we do this?" shouted his angels.

"Keep them busy in the non-essentials of life and invent innumerable schemes to occupy their minds," Satan answered. "Tempt them to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow. Persuade the wives to go to work for long hours and the husbands to work 6-7 days each week, 10-12 hours a day, so they can afford their empty lifestyles. Keep them from spending time with their children. As their family fragments, soon their home will offer no escape from the pressures of work! Over stimulate their minds so that they cannot hear that still, small voice. Entice them to play the radio or cassette player whenever they drive. To keep the TV,VCR,DVD,CDs and their PCs going constantly in their home and see to it that every store and restaurant in the world plays non-Biblical music constantly. Get the people and kids we control to keep sending text messages so they will answer and get the habit and spend hours even in school time texting. This will jam their minds and break that union with Jehovah."

"Fill the coffee tables with magazines and newspapers. Pound their minds with the news 24 hours a day. Invade their driving moments with billboards. Flood their mailboxes with junk mail, mail order catalogues, sweepstakes, and every kind of newsletter and promotional, offering free products and services and false hopes. Keep skinny, beautiful models on the magazines so the husbands will believe that external beauty is what's important, and they'll become dissatisfied with their wives. And the young unmarried men will waste time wandering around looking for a more beautiful girl than the last one they saw and get so bewildered we will be able to trap them.”

“Ha! That will fragment those families quickly! Even in their recreation, let them be excessive. Have them return from their recreation exhausted, disquiet and unprepared for the meetings. Don't let them go out in nature to reflect on God's wonders. Send them to amusement parks, sporting events, concerts, theatres, the ballet, opera, movies instead. Keep them busy, busy, busy! And when they meet for spiritual fellowship, involve them in gossip and small talk so that they leave with troubled consciences and unsettled emotions.”

“Go ahead, let them be involved in soul winning; but crowd their lives
with so many good causes and these other things that they have no time to seek power from Jehovah. Soon they will be working in their own strength, sacrificing their health and family. And then we will have won. It will work! It will work!"

It was quite a convention. The evil angels went eagerly to their
assignments, causing Witnesses everywhere to be busy, busy, busy and
more rushed, going here and there.

But I guess the question we should ask is this: Has the Devil been successful at his scheme? You be the judge! Does "busy" mean: B-eing U-nder S-atans Y-oke? Are YOU too BUSY?
**********************************************************************

Isn't thant just really really vile?

87

this website

by little_lamb_on_a_hill in

jw
friends

i just stumbled onto this website whilst messing about on the internet and i've taken exception to quite a lot of what i've seen here.

incase you think i'm some irate jehovah's witness idiot who's been offended by the terrible blasphemy that he's read on here, i'm not.

i was raised a jw, but now i'm not one.. first of all, given the url, i thought this website was in some way affiliated with the jehovah's witness organization, whereas in reality it seems from the posts i've read that most people here are either former jehovah's witnesses or soon-to-be former jehovah's witnesses.

Abaddon

Break out the mint sauce...

I just stumbled onto this website whilst messing about on the internet and I've taken exception to quite a lot of what I've seen here.
Incase you think I'm some irate Jehovah's Witness idiot who's been offended by the terrible blasphemy that he's read on here, I'm not. I was raised a JW, but now I'm not one.

For the first year or so after I left, I used to say things like "Oh, Jehovah's Witnesses are just like any another religion". Then I started learning about them. The stuff they don't teach in the Kingsom Halls. As you don't know this stuff, I think you should start learning, as you are liable not to have a lot of information that might change your viewpoint.

First of all, given the url, I thought this website was in some way affiliated with the Jehovah's Witness organization, whereas in reality it seems from the posts I've read that most people here are either former Jehovah's Witnesses or soon-to-be former Jehovah's Witnesses. Is this ambiguity deliberate? I think you should make it clearer you're not affiliated, unless it's some deliberate ploy to snare Jehovah's Witnesses, which brings me onto my next point.

Look at the top. '...anything JW related'. '... everyone is welcome'. And an advert for (at the moment, it changes) Crisis of Conscience, which is written by an x-JW, x-member of the governing body. Anyone who couldn't figure out that this site includes x-JWs (which is more than JW's manage, you obviously weren't disfellowshipped) is a little slow. And, you may not know, but JW's are councelled against using the Internet AT ALL, let alone running a website. So people who come here are going against the advice of the Organisation ALREADY, and know within seconds, if they have a brain, that there are xJW's here. You figure out if that deception.

Why are you all so bothered, well, maybe not all of you, about getting JWs to leave? Why should it matter to you in the slightest?

Because it is a cult. You can disagree if you want, but you'll have to accept that many people here and many former members feel that it is a high control group, that uses well-recognised behavioural mechanisms, often in a very subtle and covert fashion, to control peoples behaviour. I expect you will disagree, but before you do, do yourself a favour and do some research on cults.

It's worse than them going around preaching, seriously, you were Jehovah's Witnesses once, now you're not, you've learnt from your mistake, now get on with your life.

Yeah, you are so right. People have lost their families and everyone they have ever known when leaving, due to Witness policies. They should just rebuild their lives over without making a fuss or wanting to share experiences with people whove had similar ones. And those who are still in there? Their look out. Why should I be responsiblke for someone in a cult who doesn't know they are in a cult? Piss on them! (I hope you realise that is irony)

I'm not sure whether most of you are now non-religious or have some joined some other group/formed your own little religions.

A mix.

Finally, given that, from what I can gather, most of you are now former JWs, why do you make such a big deal about people within the Jehovah's Witness organization being fallible, some trifling bit of alleged corruption within the organization itself or them have a poor policy for dealing with thus and so forth? First of all, everybody's fallible, JW or not, so the fact that when you were a Jehovah's Witness a few people were nasty to you doesn't really mean a lot, it certainly doesn't mean that Jehovah's Witnesses are all hypocrites, just the people who were nasty to you. Secondly, given that the actions of the "faithful and discreet slave” are not really being directed by God, it means nothing if they deal with a few things badly, other than that they are human and make mistakes.

They (the Governing Body) claim direction from god and the right to overide an individual's conscience and control their activity based on their claim to be 'The Truth'. Yet, they use exactly the same logic as you (we are human, we make mistakes) when they are forced to admit to an error, something which they almost never do.

If you are happy with people claiming to be right, silencing any dissent by expulsion, passing rules that can effect or end peoples lives, applying different standards to different parts of the world, then, well, fine.

But I hope you can understand if some of think that this is wrong, and due to the control mechanisms effecting a Witnesses behaviour, have a greater and more damaging impact on someones lives than if they were in a more mainstrteam religion.

What I really want to know is why? Why are you so obsessed by them? Why couldn't you just either leave the religion or stay? Why must you now spend your lives "exposing the hypocrisy of the WBTS"?

Hopefully you will understand a little now, although to fully understand you will have to do some studying, as you obviously have no idea how at odds the description 'hogh control group' and the phrase 'Why couldn't you just either leave the religion or stay?' are.

And while some people might dedicate a lot of their time, that's THEIR choice; many of us just use this as a fun gathering place.

74

"ARMAGEDDON COULD HAPPEN"

by You Know in

even as apostate dubs plan their next apostofest, world leaders speak of the very real possibility of an event so dreaded that they are evoking the image of the biblical armageddon.

in the wake of the anglo-american policy revision of recklessly targeting various nations with the threat of a first-strike nuclear attack, it appears that iraq has been singled out as the first on the hit list.

in response to the increasing drum beat of war against the poster boy of evil, "sodom" hussian, the jordanian king has warned that an attack upon iraq may unleash uncontrollable destructive forces.

Abaddon

Hey, You Know, I think you should get some tax advise and save yourself $$$$$.

There is plenty of evidence you are a non-prophet organisation, and I'm sure that you would get tax breaks as a result.

84

Is homosexuality wrong?

by forgetmenot in

jw
friends

i know that the dub's view is that it is totally wrong.

i live in an area where the majority of people think it is wrong.

i don't think it is wrong (but i am not a homosexual).

Abaddon

Tallyman;

If in the Netherlands, the Dutchies' "Laws" will let you do pretty much whatever you wish to do with your weenie. They permit you to put it in any orifice you want - a little girl's vagina, a little boy's mouth, or anus, or in a rabbit, or in a rabbit hole, or anywhere-
just stop by the coffee shop and smoke plenty of dope first.

Get your facts straight mate. You might be just making a genuine mistake, but The Netherlands has quite normal rules regarding age of consent.

Perry;

What can I say? I have already demonstrated in previous threads how the Humanist and Marxist thought evangelists do indeed imbrace supernaturalism. They have no idea how the cosmos got here. Right? It is simply viewed as self-existing, infinite, beyond human comprehension, right?

No Perry, you have not 'demonstrated', you have just said the same thing over and over, and seem to think that this is demonstration. You have proved nothing. Do you need a flashlight or a proctologist to help you realise this?

You state "They have no idea how the cosmos got here. Right?"

Wrong. They have very good ideas on how the cosmos got here. Not proof. But as neither you or I can understand the mathematics used to explain the early development of the Universe, and how a singularity could arise, I suppose it is fair for me to accept your insistance that they are wrong is as ignorant as my insistance that their theories provide an adequate explaination of origins - more accurate than anything provided by theists as a whole at any rate.

So while you can state your opinion again and again that such things embrace supernaturalism, you haven't proved it to me, and to others. Equating a belief in a theory that can be proved, as far as is possible, with experiment, and can be taken back further theoretically, to a belief in a god with no proof is just dumb. There is no correlation in the type or level of belief.

You were also making a comment (in your post that I was replying to) regarding ideological strictures upon freedom of speech, and relating Marxim, Totalitarianism and Humanism together, which is, in my opinion, a bad connection. In defending your comment you start arguing about their link regarding concerning supernaturalism, which is just shifting the discussion for your aims, as if you could defend your statement in the context in which it was made, I am sure you would. Rather than admit you did use bad examples, you switch and bait.

So, having SEEMINGLY responded to my point (when you haven't at all), you say;

Do those descriptions sound familiar? Sure they do boy and girls. Those are the very descriptions that theists use to characterize God and get jumped on all the time for being unscientific!

Now, for his own reasons, Perry is discussing how unfair it is that non-theists believe what they do and how hypocritical they are. He still hasn't addressed the point I made, regarding his lumping together of ideologially dissimilar groups in a way that allowed him to assert guilt by association, when the only association in the context he was addressing at the time was him putting them in a paragraph together.

Note how HE says non-theists view the Universe as "self-existing, infinite, beyond human comprehension", and then HE replies to the view HE stated they have. Watchtowerese AGAIN. State a viewpoint you want to attack, and attack it, it doesn't matter if the viewpoint you state is erroneous or flawed or downright manipulative when compared to the viewpoint of the people you say posses it, as long as you can be seen to defeat the red herring you have concocted.

So the totalitarian thought evangelist takes an unscientific postulate that is beyond anything science or nature has ever demonstrated and then hypocritically claims intellectual authority over any competing worldviews (actually only theism)in a vain attempt to stamp out the competition.

Ah, here he returns to discussing his fear of censorship. This is a wholey artificial fear. Something he has not provided any proof for. As with some homophobes, who seem to think that gay men will force them to dress nicely and will decorate their houses whilst they sleep, or just make them look bad by dancing better than them, and who think gays are pedophiles who like nonsensual sex, Perry draws a picture of the far left that is replete with all the demonisation terminology used by the Watchtower in describing apostates.

Yet, is this far left really trying to censor people? They may attack vociferously people making statements they disagree with. But the conservative element do that as well. They may say, in effect 'You shouldn't even THINK like that'. But that conservatives do the same as well. So, really, here we have someone tilting at windmills, creating a strawman to attack. And being hypocritical.

Do they advocate a consideration of all worldviews in education. Not at all. They simply scream "unscientific" and "discrimination" and no separation between church and state, although there own founders very clearly state that their world view is religious though not a religion. I leave it to you to figure out the difference; as if, could one could be found, it would somehow justify the thought control and communist-like censure of information.
So, if it looks totalitarian, smells totalitarian, and acts totalitarian, it must be freedom? I am laughing at the very thought. The arrogance and hypocriticalness of the far left is breathtaking by virtue of its sheer porporations.

Here the world coaleses into the USA, and church means only Christianity.

Here, the fact that evolution is partilaly demonstrable and god is completely unprovable is conveniently ignored.

Here the fact that, depending on the level, different theories of evolution are introduced to the student, but they are all part of the same body of theory, is ignored.

Which religion will be so specially favoured in Perry's schools? Because they DON'T belong to the same body of theory. Or will children be taught about ALL religions? Here we have no discussion of WHAT worldviews Perry wants taught in schools, and whether Branch Davidians would get the same chance as Roman Catholics, or Hindus.

Does Perry want lessons where ALL world religons are taught in a non-biased way? Will that include Moonies and JW's? Who would decide which religions would be excluded?

Is the fact that some people believe they should commit suicide to join the aliens on the comet, or drink cyanide 'cause Jim says so, or hold out in an unwinable battle against the authorities because David says so sufficient reason to exclude their religons? Would Perry let them have their say in schools?

What about the Children of God... they'd LOVE to get into schools, and to avoid Perry's charges of censorship, we'd have to let them in.

What about some fundamental CHristians, who have frozen time in the 18th C? They okay? Or some fundamental Muslims, who superimpose tribal cultural values on Islam and use this to subgegate women?

How do we choose Perry?

And censorship? Oh wow, it's not taught in schools. Is that censorship? Yeah. They don't teach Tantric Sex or Bengali History. That must be censorship too! Or is it selection? What about children attending church with their parents? Have any words been said about these poor children being brain washed?

It is a source of unending amusement to see how the haters of democracy appeal to a sense of liberty. Democracy is all about inalienable rights, which are characteristics that are unable to be passed onto another person. The burden of responsibility is upon you my friend to prove that a characteristic is unable to be passed on to others and thus qualifies as an inalienable right. You have the responsibility my far left evangelist, to prove that homosexuality, beastiality, shit eating, or anything else you want the public to butt out of, is not able to be passed on through socialization.

Haters of democracy? Is that like haters of Jehovah? You know, a meaningless slur used to bolster a weak arguement. Wathtowerese, AGAIN.

And I love the implication that if something is only able to be passed on by socialisation, then it is not an unalienable right.

Perry, religion is passed on by socialisation, so according to YOUR ARGUEMENT, to make religion an unalienable right, you need to prove it is genetic.

(expletive deleted)

I also love the wonderful way you link "homosexuality, beastiality, shit eating" together. I don't even need to say anything about what that seems to show.

I have watched dogs eat the shit of other dogs. Does that mean that because it appears in nature that society should embrace shit eating as an inalienable right?

So Perry, what you gonna do? You gonna pass laws that outlaw shit eating? When it doesn't harm others? When it's someones' way to pursue happiness? Cause I can bet you, there are people who LOVE it. Who's being the totalitarian now Perry? Why is your opinion eating shit is bad relevant to other people?

Does it mean that the non-shit eaters should use their tax dollars to offer benefits to those who eat shit, because a lack of doing so would be discrimination?

Ah, so moving from whether homosexuality is right or wrong, you now talk about tax. Switch and bait. It's a seperate debate. Homosexuality and the use of tax dollars is not a unique linkage. ARGH!

Do we need another "scientific study" to determine if shit eating is genetic or socialized? If a study came out and said that eating shit would generally cause no harm, would that mean that your socialist argument wasn't still full of shit?

Could you try to NOT bolster your arguement with crude insults Perry? Clever ones are fine. And to answer your question, the idea anyone would want to waste time legislating about shit eating is absurd. If some wants to do it, they can, provided they don't make other people eat shit (but isn't that what politicians do??).

Oh, get ready for the grandstanding! Seats, beer, popcorn, chilli-dogs!

You see Abaddon, the whole reason we left the blood thiristy continent of Europe was that people had no say in the lifestyle they enjoyed. So we set up a system of government that realy didn't give a ficus about what the "enlightened" or the "aristocracy" said was appropriate or not. We knew that would only perpetuate the exploiation of the masses.

God, I think I know why Canadians say 'eh' all the time. It's a natural response living so close to Perry!

So, you left Europe as "people had no say in the lifestyle they enjoyed". And now in America, you want to have a say in the lifestyle other people are allowed?

Eh?

Oh, no doubt you will carry on about how censored the poor ickle right wingers are, what with their President being in power in the USA, that this Presidency has been the contunation (after the gap of the nton Adminstration) of an Oligarchy that has persisted since Reagan got into power, and most corporate dollars being controlled by people of right wing politics. Yes, very censored poor little right wingers. Awww. Didums.

But, to me you seem to miss the point that left wingers are just saying "If someone wants to do something, and it's not harmful, then they can", (other than an extremist fringe which you can bring into the conversation if can I bring the extremist right wing into the conversation).

Liberals want to live in a society without any strictures on belief and lifestyple provided that others rights are not infringed by such freedoms. Bad naughty liberals.

You can twist, distort, quote selectively, grandstand, do whatever you like really, and you cannot change this fact, although your right (supported by the left wing) to have those opinions is protected.

Likewise, the appeal to the science community as the final source of right and wrong is just another attempt to take away the voting rights from the public and put that power into the hands of the precious freedom. And make no mistake, your "science" is funded by powerful political and economic organizations. Our founding fathers wanted us to not take our precious freedom lightly. They guaranteed the right to bear arms as a final deterrent to authoritarianism regardless if that threat came from foreigners, an oligarchy, or a philosophical agenda.

Hey-ho, we're discussing whether homosexuality is wrong, and you are grandstanding with fine sounding words containing buzzwords like precious freedom, founding fathers, voting rights.

Seperating church and state so freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion was guaranteed is one of the best features of the US government, and even then it is flawed (swearing the p[resident in on the Bible??? What happens when you have an atheist president or a Muslim president?). You make conspiracy-like "they are out to get us" statements, but ignore that many people agree with the scientists, and the scientists are people with votes too. You even manage to get a mention of guns in. Poster boy!

I also love the way you ignore that according to your logic, if the local people think it's okay, and the local moral code supports it, it would have been okay for that woman in Northern Nigeria to have been stoned to death for adultery if she'd been found guilty.

You ignore that to some people in Nigeria, commiting adultery is as bad as homosexuality, or whatever, is to some people in the West.

So, because some people think adultery is bad in America, what shall we do to adulterers in YOUR brave new world society?

I said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since it is based soley on the authority of a god that is claimed to exist, but cannot be proved, many people look to a quantifiable determination of right or wrong, as in a court of law, rather than old moral codes that got written down at some point."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied;

Yes, those nasty old dusty moral codes about family, role of government, honesty, altruism, and right and wrong. They seem rather stupid in light of infallible men of science don't they? Let's see some of the reliableness of some of these men of science.

Very nice. You seem to miss the point I made about determination of harm being a good quantifier of right or wrong. Is that because none of the quotations you give attack this point, so you attack whatever point you can find to make it look like you answered the arguement in an adequate fashion? That's what you tend to do Perry.

I am getting tired of discussing things with you Perry. I love discussing things with people, but you have all the elegance and finesse of that hippo in Fantasia when you try to do your moves. I am glad you convince yourself though, as I bear no ill-will toward you and hope you are happy.

But I get tired of the illogical arguements that are inadequately thought through. I get tired of the same cliched use of loaded language and Watchtoweresque argumentation. I get tired of you ignoring the actual meaning of words when it suits you, or refusing to define what you mean, and I know that this has been said to you before by others. It's a pity, but I can't be arsed playing with someone who doesn't play nice, as there is no satisfaction of finding common ground or learning another viewpoint, just the same old bag of tricks.

Let's just leave it by looking at your last two paragraphs;

Well, I think that it is safe to say that your critique of the democratic process and the touting of the superiorness of state/academic statements concerning the establishment of right and wrong is extremely short sighted and is fraught with dangers to our freedoms.

I said right and wrong were best determined by harm, rather than some moral code that may or may not be relevant, and that may or may not be held by those it was being enforced upon. That is no more "extremely short sighted and is fraught with dangers to our freedoms" than icecream. You have not proved your case.

You have failed miserable to illustrate how that behaviors that can clearly be socialized have no part of the democratic process. You have not defined what an inalienable right is other that just stating "many people" believe it.

You on one hand rail against people having the temerity to support behaviours that may be socialised being part of the democratic process.

And then you support religion being part of the democratic process. Tell me, is the religon or the desire to bear arms socialised or genetic?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Hey, this genetics arguement is best used against religiously motivated bigots who, because of the way they were bought up, need to be shown that homosexuality is probably largely in-born. If it's in-born, what god could find it wrong? This logic has helped a lot of people overcome their bigotry.

To me it means diddly, as I think homosexuality is right because people want to do it and it doesn't harm others. So, your point about socialisation, in addition to shooting yourself in the ass, isn't that relevant if you have a harm-based determination of right and wrong as I do. It's just a better way of approaching some people.

So I'll just ignore that you have ignored the implications of the survey you quoted on the other thread; you assume the 50% that weren't gay are proof that those that were gay were socialised, rather than accepting that 50% are gay, and that 50% are not, and that this may be due to socialisation of those that WEREN'T gay, or of those that WERE gay. So your statement about "behaviors that can clearly be socialized" is yet another of your assertions without basis.

As for my definitions of inalienable rights, I am sorry if you missed my mention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an example. So are you forgetful, or didn't you read my post, or are you grandstanding by saying things about me that cannot be supported by facts.

That's why I don't like 'playing' with you Perry.

It appears that the propaganda of the far left has left you illequipped to deal with logic and a near complete inability to see the contridictons and political nightmare your agenda proposes to lovers of freedom.
Don't worry Abaddon, there are many of us who want to preserve the democratic process and will fight to keep voices of all free, even yours.

Er, yeah, tell me all you know about logic and inability to see contradictions. Get back to me about religion being genetic or not (I actually know what the answer maybe and have the rope ready for you).

Perry, you don't present arguements, you make Swiss Cheese, and after a while it gets dull flying through the same old holes. And I am sure I cannot see that any society where right and wrong is based on whether harm is caused would be a 'political nightmare'. And ONCE AGAIN, we see the tired cliched phrases, "lovers of freedom", and the deceitful accusations that the left are against the democratic process.

It's dull. Again, I bear you no ill will, but until you can have a discussion AND play nice, I'll just salute you and leave you be.

32

When You Were Devout, What Was The Most..

by Englishman in

jw
friends

when you were a devout witness, what were the teachings that you couldnt accept, even though you believed most of the rest?.

heres mine:.

1. we know the bible is true, it proves itself true.

Abaddon

Looking back the level of cognotive dissonance one can maintain while still being ready to defend it tooth and nail as the truth is quite remarkable.

The women in subjection thing. I thought that was dumb; I had a smart mum, smart sisters-in-law, was friends with smart sisters, and it just didn;t make sense, and I couldn't figure out why they seemed so happy with it.

The little rules, facial hair rules , grooming rules, dating rules, clothes rules, blah, blah blah.

The Pharasees, the little tin-pot Elders and CO's who were obsessed with imposing their interpretation of the letter of the law.

Everyone dying but 'us'. Blood... why was it okay for David's men to eat unbled meat coz they were hungry, but it's not okay to save a life with a blood transfusion. The annointed; I have a mad aunt who is annointed, and that's enough to put you off the idea alone.

I could go on. I'm just amazed that we all manage to compartmentalise all these beefs that most of us have for so long.

You got to hand it to them. The WTBTS are very good at being soul-sucking life destroyers. But they can be beaten!

26

Creation Story Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

the two different creation stories in genesis contradict each other in the matter of the order of the creation of man and vegetation.

in the first story, vegetation was created on the third day, and three days later man was created.

however, in the second creation story, there was no vegetation before man.

Abaddon

I think something is strange here.

Bible bashing?

If something has contradictions or problems, and people use this something to justify virtually any type of action, then pointing out that this something is not a reliable guide and should not be used, as it has done in the past, as a pretext and justification for actions that sometime cause harm to people, or to impose restrictions upon people based upon one of a finate number of indeterminate interpretations, is quite reasonable.

If I find a manual for a BMW 735 that tells me that I should put jam in the engine, and someone is using the section on suspension to justify picking the nose of people with a large axe, then it is reasonable to point out that the book is in error, and that any claim that it is reasonable to pick peoples nose with an axe just because it says so in that book is equally suspect.

Am I BMW bashing if I do this? No. Is Joseph Alward Bible bashing? No. He simply believes that the Bible is an unreliable guide, and anyone starting off addressing him by throwing terms like 'Bible Bashing' is obviously starting off with a raft of assumptions and bias of their own.

Defend something in it's own right, if it can be defended. Don't kill the bearer of bad news... it's not HIS fault. And, of course, you don't have to agree with him.

But to discredit someone using simple yet unjustified linguistic labels is to resort to dirty tactics that we should know better than to employ, with the experience we have as 'apostates'.

Are Theists 'Atheist Bashing'. Are Creationists 'Origin of the Species Bashing'? Purlease!!

Deal in issues, not in meaningless insults.

24

The Memorial has just Started

by Prisca in

well, it's almost 7pm in sydney australia and no doubt some congregations would be starting their memorials very soon, if not already.

due to the overcast conditions, i can't see the moon, but one of the special things about this time of the year is seeing the full moon, which reminds me of the specialness of the memorial ritual held for me as i was growing up.. this is the second time in my entire life that i will be absent from the memorial.

it was strange last year to be not attending for the first time ever, but this year i feel more comfortable about it.. i'm not sure why.

Abaddon

For me, I found I had the guilt thing once since I left, but only when I told my mad annointed aunt I'd go and didn't, or said I'd see if I could go to my parents.

I felt more badly about 'letting them down' than about missing the actual ceremony itself, as I was so releved not to have to go to meetings again I don't think I could feel bad about meeting one unless it was to do with things around the meeting - people, in other words.

I don't know if anyone else identifies with that.

39

Are you happy?

by teejay in

jw
friends

in the context of this forum, happiness at its core is generally defined in one of two ways: a) being a witness or, b) not being a witness.

most of us consider ourselves happier since leaving the organization.

because of a recent discussion between violetanai and marilyn, i've thought about it some more, only to reaffirm the truth i already discovered some time ago.

Abaddon

I think that to draw any conclusion from your Ma and Aaron alone would be hasty. You're dealing with a question much larger than JW's and xJW's.

For a start we have expectations and perceptions of happiness. If I have x I'll be happy. I must be happy because of y. Now, just because we think that, doesn't mean that it is true.

"I'll be happy when I am rich".

Maybe, maybe not, as money might remove some worries, but that's a different thing to giving you hapiness. I think Aaron has found this, but cannot comment on why he's not happy as I don't know the guy and I am but a dime-store shrink and psycho-babbler anyway. I'm quite happy nowadays, and don't see 'winning the lottery' changing this unless I let winning the lottery change me, so obviously money and happiness are not totally linked.

"I must be happy because I am one of Jehovah's people, performing a special in-gathering task in these times of the end, and this, and the prospect of being one of what will be a special group of people, Armagedon survivors, is good reason to be happy! Look at the bountious table of spiritual food laid before us at the meetings!"

Now, for your mum, this seems to work. For others this is a lip-service, a life of dull drudgery, a life of never being good enough, and, some of us believe, a life built on a sequence of cunningly presented and attractive lies. Thus. being a Dub and happiness are not totally linked.

This is why the comments about inbuilt factors are so important.

I've been depressed. I've lain under a two-ton duvet too sad to move. I've let weeks or months drift by in an apathetic haze. Some of that time I was a JW. Some of that time I was out. For me, I know when the clocks go back, I need to really try to keep psychologically healthy or I will realise in December that I am and have been feeling down for weeks. Now, NOTHING has changed between August and December in this example, everything is pretty much the same. But in August I am happy and in December I am sad.

Many people have similar experiences. Some aren't influenced by seasons, they have some other cycle going, or don't have any detectable cycle. But there's more than enough life-experiences and data to show that happiness is a complex combination of internal and external factors.

Sometimes it is as simple as figuring out what is missing. Sometimes it is as simple as feeling sad to the depths of your bones for no real reason.

Personally though, I would rather know the truth about The Truth and be sad than not know and be artificially happy. I think it's sad if people rely on drugs for happiness... a happiness based on misinformation is as futile and potentially damaging as one based on pharmacuticals.

Nice thread everyone.