Magnum

Joined

• started 37 topics
• posted 2,830 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Magnum

• 
  41

  Speculation Fall AGM

  by Poztate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a lot of comments have been made about possible big changes at the agm in the fall.. comments range from changes to the blood doctrine or who compose the one hundred and forty four thousand.. my speculation is.... (and if someone else had this kind of thread i am not stealing from you..just never read it).

  the door to door as we know it will cease to exist.

  the publishing of a monthly public wt and awake will end.. instead each month a tract with different subjects and a redirect to jw.org will come out.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  The way this religious organization is changing there's nothing that would be overtly surprising.

  I agree with that. It's interesting to watch the situation trying to figure out what's going to happen next.
• 
  41

  Speculation Fall AGM

  by Poztate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a lot of comments have been made about possible big changes at the agm in the fall.. comments range from changes to the blood doctrine or who compose the one hundred and forty four thousand.. my speculation is.... (and if someone else had this kind of thread i am not stealing from you..just never read it).

  the door to door as we know it will cease to exist.

  the publishing of a monthly public wt and awake will end.. instead each month a tract with different subjects and a redirect to jw.org will come out.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  I was kind of wondering whether the door-to-door work was going to be eliminated or at least minimized, myself. I was thinking maybe they're trying to become more mainstream and they think they might be able to attract more followers if they eliminate the door-to-door stuff. However, my wife went to all three days of the convention, and she said that a GB member mentioned the work with the carts and other forms of witnessing and said the door-to-door work is still our main form of witnessing.

  I'm not so sure about the blood issue. I really think they'd love to eliminate it, but they can't because they've preached it for so long and people have died for it. I think they wish they had never started it. The current situation just absolutely does not make sense. How can it be that blood is sacred, should be poured on the ground when removed from the body, and is not to be transfused, yet it can be sent to some facility where it will be fractionated and then any and all fractions can be transfused? It's inconsistent and it doesn't make sense.

  Maybe that will be the change??? Maybe they'll word it something like "Since taking all fractions of blood is already a conscience matter, the Governing Body has determined that from now on it would be more consistent for the individual to prayerfully and scripturally decide whether he would accept a transfusion of whole blood or primary components. We trust that all will view this issue seriously and remember that many our dear brothers and sisters have been willing to die over this issue in the past. It is not a matter to be treated lightly." If they do it, they will word it in a way to try to defuse any potential objections. For example, they will mention the fact that many have died over the issue so if somebody says "but a lot of people died over that issue", they can say "we acknowledged that already". Their ackknowledging it does not remove the argument, but most JWs don't have the mental machinery to recognize that.

  I, too, foresee a possible change in the mags.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  Witness My Fury - Thank you. I needed your comment. This thread is actually depressing me for several reasons. One is that I like healthy discussion, but this is not healthy. I truly am a friendly, caring, compassionate person, but this thread is forcing me to be harsher than I like to be.

  I think I'll heed your advice and try to use will power and leave it. I like your suggestion about doing "something useful". I've wasted time on this thread that I could have used better. I have a number of animal enclosures to build for homeless animals. That's ironic considering that lurker #1 said I probably don't have empathy and natural affection for animals.

  Anyway, thanks again. Good advice. I'm going to try to stick to the types of threads that are the reason for my coming here - those having to do with analysis of JW doctrine, trends, and history; history of the Bible and religion; how the Bible books were chosen; Biblical archaeology; etc.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  Still in a hurry, have to be somewhere, but have to respond to this one, too.

  Lurker, can't get past your first sentence. You're another one who lacks comprehension. This thread is not about whether "Pedophilia on ANY level is wrong". As I said in my last post, NOBODY has said it's not wrong - nobody. If you want to preach about the wrongs of pedophilia, then go find an audience. We all know and believe it's wrong - all of it, no matter whether it's a milder form or a more serious form - it's all wrong. It's all wrong. It's all wrong. It's all wrong. It's all wrong. It's all wrong. It's all wrong.

  How many times do I need to repeat that to keep another comprehension-lacker from coming along and saying it?

  As I said, lurker, I didn't read past your first sentence; you disqualified yourself at that point with your lack of comprehension.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  Thank you, Outlaw, for posting that. I will respond in detail later; have to leave to go somewhere now.

  Quick comment for now:

  To the lurker. Your writing is indicative of a lack of intelligence that, to me, disqualifies you from this discussion.

  For those who disagree that Dawkins spoke out of line (and, given his stature in society, it certainly was out of line, but I, for one, am glad he DID because it shows his imperfection which many don't seem to see, or want to see, which is not surprising, but, given the "perfection" of say, religious leaders, even atheists should be glad the man is HUMAN), the problem is their lack of empathy and "natural" affection (evidently, for children, but probably for animals, too). Or they are, as someone said, pedophiles themselves.

  It's hard to follow that attempt at writing, but I can sort of decipher it. So it seems that in the quote above you're saying that I have "lack of empathy and "natural" affection (evidently, for children, but probably for animals, too)" or that 'I am a pedophile myself'. At the end of your post, you say that some ex-JWs scare the hell out of you; well, people like you scare the hell out of me - people who can say such about me based solely on comments I've made on this thread. Your kind are the fanatical, unreasonable witch-hunters.

  If my wife knew what you said, she would be livid. She is a witness to the fact I live in depression over the horrors and suffering in the world - suffering of children, adults, and animals. It is a constant, daily concern of mine. If you were familiar with my posting history, you'd know I'm a lover of animals. It infuriates to me know for a fact that I spend vastly more time and money caring for needy animals than you do. I spend at least a thousand dollars a month on animal welfair. I take care of about 100 stray animals. I go every single night at midnight to feed about fifteen homeless cats at a local truckstop. Yet, you, in your great wisdom and all-knowingness, say that I probably lack empathy for animals.

  As far as caring for children (and adults), it's a daily topic of conversation at my house. Recently I was riding down the interstate alone in my car with tears streaming down my face because I heard something on the radio about a young blind girl, and I was thinking how horrible for her to live in a world of darkness.

  But to say that what occurred, with Mr. Dawkins, his friends, of even one poster here, was not wrong "because" they weren't (lastingly) harmed by it, is stupid. Ridiculous. UNintelligent.

  Actually, you're the one who's stupid, ridiculous, and unintelligent. You totally lack comprehension. NOBODY has said that what occurred wasn't wrong - Dawkins didn't say it, I didn't say it, nobody on this thread has said it. I do say, however, that it is reasonable to say that some forms or incidents of pedophilia can be milder than others just as some forms of torture can be milder than others. Do you believe that all forms of torture are equal? You don't agree that some forms could be worse than others? You don't agree that fondling of breasts or genitalia could be viewed by some as being milder than brutal sodomy?

  I've got to go now, but I'm infuriated over your saying that I lack natural affection or that I'm a pedophile just because of my reasonable, logical comments made on this thread. I'd love to have a live public debate with you - one with good moderators who are unbiased, logical, and reasonable.

  edit: KateWild, cofty might not bite, but I'm capable of it. I usually don't. I hate discord, disagreement, etc. I'm a lover of peace. However, the lurker's comment has brought me to the biting point.
• 
  22

  circuit overseer worship

  by Magnum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for over thirty years i observed among jws the phenomenon of co worship/idolatry.

  i, myself, was somewhat guilty of it even though i rather quickly caught on and detected something wrong.. think about the week of the co visit.

  during that week most attention is given to and most thought is about the co. the supposed sovereign of the universe takes a backseat.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  PureEnergy, I forgot about how everything is so different when the CO comes around; that used to really bother me. I would see appointed brothers who never went out in service with the group show up early dressed in their best with beaming faces when the CO was around. People would come out of hibernation, but the next week, it would be back to normal. I always used to say that CO visits never really gave the org a picture of what a cong was really like.
• 
  22

  circuit overseer worship

  by Magnum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for over thirty years i observed among jws the phenomenon of co worship/idolatry.

  i, myself, was somewhat guilty of it even though i rather quickly caught on and detected something wrong.. think about the week of the co visit.

  during that week most attention is given to and most thought is about the co. the supposed sovereign of the universe takes a backseat.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  For over thirty years I observed among JWs the phenomenon of CO worship/idolatry. I, myself, was somewhat guilty of it even though I rather quickly caught on and detected something wrong.

  Think about the week of the CO visit. During that week most attention is given to and most thought is about the CO. The supposed Sovereign of the Universe takes a backseat. Nobody thinks about him; everybody thinks about how he or she can impress, please, satisfy, cater to, etc. the CO. During the weekdays it’s all about him; all attention is on him. Nobody gives a passing thought to Jah.

  The CO should really be just a tool or aid in the worship of the Sovereign, but instead, he becomes the focus. Instead of his being an aid in focusing attention on Jah, he becomes the center of attention. So, he is an idol.

  It's sort of like what happened with the Mosaic Law. It was supposed to be an aid or tool in the worship of God, however, by the time of the Pharisees, it became almost the focus of worship - the center of attention. Their was so much emphasis placed on the Law that many missed the point of it. It, in effect, became an idol.

  Not only do JWs worship COs; they worship Bethelites, Bethel itself, and, of course, their main idol, the GB.

  Another problem with the CO visit is that it was always the most inefficent week or two of the year. Field service was largely a waste. We only got a few minutes of actual service in. We didn’t really get started until about 10:00am. And when we did get started, the CO did the pioneer shuffle – walking extremely slowly and talking between doors. Then after maybe slowly working one side of a short street, it was time to head off for a break. Then after the long break at McDonald’s or wherever, it was back to the field for one or two dud return visits, and then it was time to quit at 11:30 so the CO could meet back at the hall for lunch at noon. Afternoon service was a waste, too. Once, a few years ago, a young brother (twenty-something) said something like “man, I don’t get any field service time when the CO’s here.”
• 
  16

  GB guilty of the ultimate spiritual crimes. How can JW's believe this stuff?

  by integ in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the gb is guilty of the ultimate spiritual crimes.

  blasphemy against god by claiming they "speak for jehovah".

  they said it again recently in an article..that they speak the words of jehovah and we should listen to those words.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  It makes ZERO logical sense that they can say their words are coming from God but then admit that the words they have been saying need to be changed or altered.

  It makes zero sense to me, too. If they speak for Jah, then what they say should never have to be changed in any way.

  For all the years that they taught the old generation teaching - the one that finally ran out of time and had to be changed - were they speaking for Jah? If so, Jah was wrong??? He didn't know what his son meant when he (his son) used the Greek word "genea" (generation)? And now they're speaking for Jah when they say the generation is two different groups whose lives overlap? So Jah got it wrong for many years and was forced to change his story?

  And Jah hated and demonized the internet in its early days, but now he loves it and tells them to have a cool website? Why didn't Jah have the foresight to tell them to have a website in the early days?

  Just how do they get the info from Jah in order to convey it to us? Do they all get it at the same time? Does just one get it? If the info is truly from Jah, why do they have to vote on it? I mean why would somebody vote against Jah? Since they vote, they must not be sure it's from Jah, but they expect JWs to unquestioningly accept it as being from Jah.

  Just think about. Suppose Tony Morris gets some info from Jah. He presents it to the others. If he knows it's from Jah, shouldn't they all just accept it and not have to vote on it. They must have some doubt since they vote and some evidently vote negative at times.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  Giordano: ...."you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standard of ours." Is he out of his mind??? Of course we condemn people from an earlier era. How far back do we go......All the way back to reported history......Rape, child abuse, slavery, slave abuse, murder, or any other cause of human on human abuse (animal abuse as well) has been condemned.......we can put the condemnation in a historical context but we can't apply the standards of this era?

  What you wrote is illogical. You quote Dawkins as saying "you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standard of ours." You then wrote "Of course we can condemn people from an earlier era." That's not what Dawkins said. He didn't say that we can't "condemn people from an earlier era", he said we "can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standard of ours." And I agree with that. Just consider something like drunk driving. There has been so much education against it and awareness of it in the last few years that I could condemn somebody more today for causing a death due to drunk driving than I could thirty or forty years ago. That doesn't mean I'm minimizing the seriousness of it.

  Mr. Dawkins is a prominent person of some considerable stature. Most of us JW's don't always accept every damn thing someone of stature gets to say.

  Another problem with logic. That's a strawman argument. You just introduced a separate issue are attacking it rather than the issue at hand. Nobody has even remotely indicated that anybody should accept what Dawkins says because of any "stature" that he might have. I personally think he's very intelligent, but I'm not intimidated by his intellect and knowledge even in the slightest way and certainly don't automatically accept what he says. I've read some of his books and don't agree with all his arguments. Also, I think he comes across as being arrogant at times.

  I just know what he is quoted as saying in the article referred to in this thread, and I don't get from what it what some others are getting.

  Also, I will repeat what I posted above:

  The title of the article (and thus the title of the thread) misrepresents Dawkins. The title is: Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”. What the title indicates is untrue. What Dawkins actually said was:“I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm (bold and italics mine). ” That’s far different from what the title says he said. The title indciates that he generalized and said that “mild pedophilia” didn’t cause any lasting harm (to anyone). If I said that the disease didn’t affect me, and someone says that I said that the disease has no effect on humans, then that person would be either lacking in comprehension or deliberately misrepresenting me.

  I'm sticking with fact and logic. Fact: Dawkins said "I don't think he did any of us any lasting harm." Fact: That's not the same as saying it doesn't cause lasting harm (in general).
• 
  40

  If there was a pill that could open their eyes - would you give it to them?

  by truthseeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if there was a pill you could give to your jw family members that would awaken their eyes to the truth about the cult, would you give it to them?.

  most would probably say yes.. but what about those who are completely institutionalized, the elderly, the super zealous, the geeky kids who have no friends, the misfits?.

  some people need "boundaries", they need someone to lead and give them directions, they need a sense of belonging, even in an organization that has no social programs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Magnum

  Yeah, OnTheWayOut, your words make sense to me. I think the current trend among medical ethicists is to tell people the truth even if it hurts. My mother just recently called me bitter. I told my wife that that's an ad hominem attack - a logical fallacy. She attacks me - not my argument. That's common among JWs. If somebody leaves, that person must be bitter or weak or evil. They don't address the person's argument; they usually won't even hear it. So, I certainly don't disagree with you. It would be justice for her to see TTATT.