Posts by Gentledawn

75

Guns. Well said Mr President, if only your countrymen had the same courage to consider changing course.

by nicolaou in

ive had to make statements like this too many times.

communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.

once again, communities [were harmed] because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no problem getting their hands on a gun.. lets be clear: at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.

Gentledawn

Didn't read through every page, so here goes:

Why is it always about guns? What about the medications/drugs he was on?

__________________

Much existential fear existed during that era.

WTF?

England ruled the Americas with an iron fist. "Taxation without representation", etc, etc. They wanted the colonies to cough up all of their guns... in a fucking country (North America) comprised almost entirely of wilderness. The British required the colonists to house their soldiers in people's homes, effectively displacing the families. They ate their respective larders and did not replace in any way whatsoever, saying it was their 'duty' to put up and feed the British men they involuntarily were housing.

It wasn't all quaint between the colonists and their rulers, and all "oh pardon us, but we'd rather have this place as our own country, thanks anyway". The colonies were a resource and a cash cow, with little regard as to what it actually took to survive. Let alone housing scads of extra people in your home, who broke your shit, ate all your stores, and walked away whilst effectively flipping you the bird as to how you and yours were to survive the dreadful winters here. It's not like walmart and mega-sized grocery/hardware stores existed back then.

________________________

(in regard to cops shooting a family dog)

"It's high time an insurgency did spring up in the U.S."

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/38kztj/st_louis_county_swat_team_killed_family_dog_over/crw5f9o

Funny how violence from cops, drone bombs constantly dropping in places like Yemen, executions without trials (drones again), and all manner of shit is A-okay if the government and police are the ones doing it.

But some kid whose mind is twirling from being overly medicated/drugged, and looping on thoughts that only make sense when completely removed from human empathy? Yeah, guns. That's the answer. The only answer. Always.

14

No no No No NO! Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT COOL NOW!

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

they obviously know it.. in the last few years, a more modern, hip, and cool image for their brand has been foisted on the public at large.. jw.org.

(sidebar: a group of us witnesses, when i was a teen, were sternly lectured by a circuit servant about how wrong it was to refer to ourselves as jw's.want to know why?

he said, "reducing jehovah's name to mere letters of an alphabet is blasphemy!

Gentledawn

No no No No NO! Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT COOL NOW!

Oh, yeah?

"Published on July 10, 2014

RMC - Conyers Assembly Hall Tour for the 2014 International Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses in Atlanta. Our Russian Brothers and Sisters were having a great time dancing but it was not in the frame of the stationary camera."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQRU9KEIW4

16

TERRY EXPLAINS JAZZ (to those who hate jazz)

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

terry explains jazz (to those who hate jazz)_______________________________.

there are too many reasons to cite.

suffice to say, we all know annoying people.. we don't become a hermit because of a few annoying people.

Gentledawn

There are jazz elements in Doors music, Pink Floyd too

Agreed. Check out "same old song and dance" by Aerosmith with that thought in mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdWPwVTWsI

6

Why are demons so easy to make friends with?

by GodZoo in

one thing i have been wondering lately regarding a teaching of the org (and other christians) regarding demons... why is it they so easy to contact, make friends with and have them full on involved in your life on an almost immediate and daily basis?.

why is it you can pray to god, jesus, angels, whoever, during an entire lifetime of offering them loyal devoted and unswerving service yet not one time in say 50 years of this lifestyle will you ever get a response, hear a peep, see even a wisp of a vision or even get the faintest hint of unquestionable interaction from god..?.

yet on the other hand demons are ready and willing to engage and befriend you in a heartbeat, touch you, talk to you, even molest you in your bed at night, give you gifts, talents, charm and worldly success simply after buying an old mirror, a bit of tatty furniture or a dishevelled book from some dusty old second hand goods store, or simply watching a scary movie or listening to a sexy rock song... .

Gentledawn

Ouija boards, too. Every damned one of 'em is allegedly infested with at least one demon.

And yet "God" can't be arsed to save people from tsunami flooding?or anything else for that matter?

Stephen Fry on God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

16

TERRY EXPLAINS JAZZ (to those who hate jazz)

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

terry explains jazz (to those who hate jazz)_______________________________.

there are too many reasons to cite.

suffice to say, we all know annoying people.. we don't become a hermit because of a few annoying people.

Gentledawn

George Cables - Helen's song (My Muse)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm4FgzT6fNg

______________________

Might be hard to believe, but the Charlie Brown Christmas special will turn 50 years old this year (December 9th, 1965). Mentioning this because I linked the holiday sound track in a previous reply in this thread.

"Great Pumpkin Waltz" ("It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" c. 1966)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flWB-WaKm5U

16

TERRY EXPLAINS JAZZ (to those who hate jazz)

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

terry explains jazz (to those who hate jazz)_______________________________.

there are too many reasons to cite.

suffice to say, we all know annoying people.. we don't become a hermit because of a few annoying people.

Gentledawn

A few of mu faves:

Dave Brubeck - Take Five (Live performance. Song is originally off the "Time Out" LP, c. 1959)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn3acz2KI9M

__________________________

Vince Guaraldi Trio - A Charlie Brown Christmas (Full Album)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AZAo3Ia7DE

_________________________

Tank! Cowboy Bebop (Full version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jCJZEFIto

____________________

9

Interesting article considering what's happening begging for money in the congregations

by JakeM2012 in

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/14/us/sunday-stickup/index.html.

i thought this article had some interesting interesting comments including this, "if a pastor or church leader has ever told you that the bible commands christians to tithe or give 10% of their income; hit you up for multiple offerings during one service; made you march up front to give; asked you to donate to a mysterious "building fund" or give a "first-fruit" offering; or even given special recognition to big givers in your congregation, lee and other pastors have a message for you:.

you are getting played.. these rituals, they say, violate new testament teachings about how and why people should give.

Gentledawn

Quoting from the article, because this goes to show the May JW.Borg broadcast had a money-making consultant advising them from the wings:

Were these people cheerful or gullible givers? For Lee, a church elder who spent 30 years marketing and selling church products, they were victims of the "Sunday morning stickup" -- his term for manipulative tactics pastors and churches use to get your money.

No. 3: Distorting two popular scriptures

Some pastors don't just distort a scriptural passage. They misuse scriptural phrases -- such as the "first fruit offering."

First fruit offerings were agricultural offerings that the Israelites gave to God in the Old Testament, says Lee, of "Sunday Morning Stickup." Yet some pastors invoke that phrase to tell people that God commands them to give the "first fruits" of their financial bounty, which could mean someone giving everything from the first check of the year to the first check one received after a job promotion.

"It's a misapplication of scripture," Lee says. "They encourage individuals that before they pay their bills, before they buy their groceries or do anything with their finances, many of them say 'You have to take care of God first.' ''

If pastors and churches are so cunning when asking for money, what can stop the manipulation? One pastor says technology may be the answer.

The collection plate, the symbol of the offering, is going the way of VHS videos.

The church is on the verge of a digital revolution in giving, says Albertson, the Lutheran pastor. More people are donating through online bank accounts and credit card swipes, he wrote in an essay, "What Will the End of the Offering Plate Mean for Christian Worship."

"Nobody carries money in their wallets anymore," Albertson says. "There's a big movement up ahead of shifting over to various online giving platforms and digital platforms."

Still, Albertson is not so sure that this digital revolution will end the practice of pastors shaking down congregations for money.

"Religious leaders will find a way to use guilt somehow," he says.

Some say that using guilt isn't bad. Shouldn't people be shamed if they're not generous? But how and why someone should be generous -- perhaps that's ultimately up to the person in the pew.

So when the organist hits those celestial chords to signal offering time or a smiling usher beckons you out of your pew, ask yourself:

Am I about to freely give -- or is this a Sunday morning stickup?

36

"Mentally Diseased" comment makes news

by freemindfade in

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/985479.

i know it's old but i never saw this one before.

.

Gentledawn

Ruby456 original post that I replied to at the start:

Another thing is that if the investigators checked with sociololgists and psychologists they would find that new religious movements and cults do attract lots of people who do have mental illnesses and that those who have a mental illness do not remain within these organisations for very long and when they do leave they very often leave in anger and rage. So for a new religious movement to tell its followers have nothing to do with apostates as they are mentally ill/mentally diseased they cannot be held responsible for inciting hatred if it is the case that there is mental illness involved. Plus if the whole thrust of the article is saying stay away from them, do not engage them they are simply saying what the police or anyone else in authority would say - take responsibility to avoid rather than confront, keep safe.

then again if apostates are the ones inciting hatred of Jehovahs it would only be right for Jehovahs witnesses to warn its followers to avoid them - it would be the rational and indeed law abiding thing to

so really this is a non starter imo.

Breakdown of what you seem to be claiming here:

• "new religions" (aka 19th century doomsday cults and fundamentalist movements) attract people who are already mentally ill (<--- I asked for a citation regarding this claim), ones who don't stay in very long
• people leave "the truth"
• therefore, people who leave are mentally ill/diseased

The watchtower does NOT disfellowship (oust) and subsequently shun people who leave due to mental illness. They are told to shun EVERYONE who leaves.

gentedawn

Hunsberger and Brown 1984, atran 2004

other than the above ("Hunsberger and Brown 1984, atran 2004"), you don't need to convince me as I know what you are saying already, but what does the law and the police require of religion? for example where is there any incitefulness to hatred in the watchtower extract when what it is saying is to avoid - and avoid false teachers and apostates at that?

Then, by way of reply:

I'm not cherry picking - the link between mental illness and new religious movements was a shock for me. But then again 1 in four people will experience mental illness according to the Mental health foundation so I'll admit that this a controversial arena.

Your original statement was that "new religious movements" ATTRACT people with mental illness, meaning they were ill before joining the religion/becoming a JW. Then when asked for a citation, you gave the name of 2 researchers as a reference plus a year-date, a comma, followed by a vague "altran 2004".

36

"Mentally Diseased" comment makes news

by freemindfade in

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/985479.

i know it's old but i never saw this one before.

.

Gentledawn

Hunsberger and Brown 1984, atran 2004

That is incomplete information. Seriously, can you at least cite the name of the study or article that you're allegedly cherry-picking your info?

Here's a study:
"Who benefits from religion?"
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/mochon%20norton%20ariely%202011.pdf

That study cites "Hunsberger & Brown" in its references, a book/article titled "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion". That lead to the next internet search, which turned up this:

Chapter 12
Religion and Mental Disorder
Religion as a Hazard to Mental Health
http://softdevlabs.com/personal/psych/disorder.html

Research Box 12.7.
Rigid Religiosity and Mental Health
(Stifoss-Hansen, 1994)

"Religious bodies possess rules and regulations that people can often interpret in ways ranging from an easy flexibility to a rigid absolutism. The latter has been defined in one major study as a "law-orientation." a In the present study, a scale of rigid-flexible religiosity was developed and administered to 56 volunteer hospitalized neurotic patients and a control group of 70 nonpatients. The first group scored significantly higher than the controls on the scale, demonstrating that a rigid religiosity is a correlate of, at least, severely neurotic thinking and behavior. The author is inclined to suggest a positive relationship between mental disturbance and an extrinsic religious orientation. "
_____________________________________________
a Strommen, Brekke, Underwager, and Johnson (1972).

--------------

That is one studys findings. It does not state that religion attracts people with mental illness, just that participating in rigid religiosity "demonstrating that a rigid religiosity is a correlate of, at least, severely neurotic thinking and behavior.".

Nothing in that study supports your claim that higher number of religious recruits are already mentally ill ("diseased") before they join, or that "new" religions (don't Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be Christians?) automatically attracts high numbers of mentally "diseased" persons.

- - -

In the case of law (which was not talked about by me prior to this), it goes back to whether or not the clergy in that particular church are qualified to diagnose such a thing and if those were the actual reasons why the person left the church.

Leaving the church is a human right. The watchtower cannot claim human rights for itself as an organizational whole, and then deny individuals their basic human rights by punishing those who leave.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 18.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

- - -

In fact, the watchtower signed an agreement with a country, in order to carry on their preaching work:they would not disfellowship people who accepted blood transfusions. So what did watchtower do to punish people for violating their man-made rule? If the person accepted blood transfusions, they would be counted as disassociating themselves, which is the exact same thing as disfellowshipping.

"Bulgaria, the Watchtower and Blood Transfusions"

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bulgaria-blood-transfusions.php

36

"Mentally Diseased" comment makes news

by freemindfade in

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/985479.

i know it's old but i never saw this one before.

.

Gentledawn

if the investigators checked with sociologists and psychologists they would find that new religious movements and cults do attract lots of people who do have mental illnesses

Source?

So for a new religious movement to tell its followers have nothing to do with apostates as they are mentally ill/mentally diseased they cannot be held responsible for inciting hatred if it is the case that there is mental illness involved.

"new religious movements" sporting largely high school educated priests (elders, COs) can now diagnose diseases?

What you've done throughout your entire reply is use straw-man arguments, which is a type of logical fallacy.

The Watchtower (aka JW [dot] bOrg) ---and other religions like it-- simply want the people on the inside to stay isolated and ignorant. It has nothing to do with former members being the problem. Watchtower treats former members the same way an abusive spouse treats their victims: they (watchtower) never do anything wrong. It's always the victim(s) who are at fault for everything.

Of course the watchtower isn't using deceptive tactics. After all, it's impossible for them to lie, because they are Jehovah.