Peg, I like what you say. freetosee
Laughing laughing laughing
Darcy - if it is likely to stop you laughing till you choke on your own vomit,
I have two Batchelors degrees - one in music and the other in Mathematics and software engineering, as well as three postgraduate.
Education has nothing to do with seeing through the WTBTS lies. Just remembering the contradictions in the litterature is enough.
Have you read CS Lewis "The Screwtape letters"? You sound like prime Demon Material, esp. with that laugh!
Stick around Honey, you'll learn lots and see the WT as it is. You won't regret it.
darcy: My regrets, Auldsoul, but you'll notice I only respond to the bits that interest me, so let's take the optimistic view: at least I responded, hmm?
I submit that you only respond to the bits for which you believe you actually have some semblance of a response.
If you are uninterested whether or not the doctrines taught by the religion are based on the Bible, why did you imply that you want to discuss the Biblical basis for their doctrines? If you are only interested in the tiny bits of doctrine that can be stretched into meaning that doesn't hold true in light of the rest of the Bible, be my guest. If you wish to ignore reams of doctrine and policy with which there is direct contradiction to Scripture, that is a choice you are free to make.
I only ask that if you don't want to discuss whether the doctrines are based on the Bible, don't ask for such a discussion.
You must belong to the most liberal KH in the world, or else the elders there are senile. Much of what you describe as your beliefs, plus your presence on this board, would get you sailed out the KH's back door faster than a rocket anywhere else in the world. So I must conclude that you're not a dedicated, baptized JW. You sound like someone who joined the JWs because it's so out there; just another way to shock the friends and family. Grow up.
It's kind of funny, you know. When ever a active Witness comes to this bored and post something. They become very popular, very quickly. I think in some ways, they become a vent for us to express on the knew information we learned too. Much like how we felt, when we learned something new from the Watchtower and could not wait for a situation to arise in which we could use the material in person.
honestly parakeet, i was raised a jw. My seeming liberality, if you care, is probably the result of a good dumptruck of bad experience and hard times. It was during that time that the elders lost their glow, and suddenly everyone was just a person, not demi-gods. That was a shock. But I readjusted, rethought, looked through other belief systems, broadened out, and kept reading my fiction, my godless fiction. And this is what you get. I've still got growing up to do, sure, but I've already done ALOT of it.
Belated welcome darcy,
Reading a few of your posts I was thinking that, quite often, the best sounding people in a religion are actually the less religious. I hope you can really be happy where you are, and if someday you can't you easily move out / on.
Of course not everyone feels like you seem to do now. At some point in one's life, religious or moral issues can become critical, so people can get upset with anyone takes them somewhat "lighter".
If you are respectful of people's feelings as you seem to wish, you can be very helpful to this board imo.
Good to see you here. The fact this thread hasn't gone 'off' is a testament to the fact you're intelligent and articulate, and have far less of an agenda than many Dubbies who wash in here.
I've been reading through Darwin's Origin of the Species, as well as other secular works that do and do not support evolution
Errrr... "Origins" is a foundation text, but much has been discovered since then.
What you are doing is like using a seminal 19th Century book on Mayan Archaeology to disprove a hypothesis that aliens are the only way they could have done various stuff.
Why not, in addition to "Origins", read some modern books on Evolution? It will give you a better understanding of things, important if you're genuinely interested in being objective.
It will also make you wonder why so many of the anti-Evolution books you're reading still frequently quote from Darwin when there is so much great science and supporting evidence since. Have you got to the one where they quote Darwin as saying some evidence was lacking as though nothing has been discovered in the 150 or so years since?
Ok, so I'm confused by all this rhetoric that Witnesses are backwards and academically dumb. I know many very very educated witnesses, and love hanging out with them.
I've known JW's who were ergonomicist for GM, stunt men, IT Officers for nuclear power stations, and COO for local authority housing departments. But many JW's either live in countries where Higher Education is rare, and as Higher Education is discouraged (as you know). We're not talking about exceptions, we are talking about the rule. And of course you don't like hanging with the dumb ones; you're intelligent and see like company, just like any intelligent person. Why sit on the porch with Bubba when you can sit in the Jacuzzi with Brad?
As for it being rhetoric; wrong, it is fact;
The following figures from an article in NEWSWEEK represent the number of college graduates within each religious group in America. Can this be used to relate the intelligence of the membership of each religion? Damn right it can! And hey, I bet everyone reading this had a pretty good idea who would place last: Unitarian 49.5
New Age 40.6
Eastern Orthodox 31.6
National Average 24%
Churches of Christ 14.6
Assemblies of God 13.7
Jehovah's Witness 4.7
(Nice link Scully)
So, the point is proven; JW's ARE backward and academically dumb. You don't have to like it but that doesn't stop it being true.
Take the blood doctrine. Now so many concessions to personal conscience have been made that you can have donated blood fractionated and transfused into your body separately, and NOT be DA'd, but the same blood transfused whole WOULD get you DA'd.
How backward and academically dumb does a LEADERSHIP have to be to think god wants that? Pharisaical elaboration and burden on the congregation is what it is.
And WHY would a religion WANT to have backward and academically dumb members? And WHY would a religion not want members to talk to ex-members?
You go to buy a car, and the salesmen tells you 'hey, some people who bought this car got rid of it, but don't talk to them or I won't let you drive the car'.
'Truth' need not hide. A religion that encourages its members to avoid Higher Education can have no reason OTHER than wishing to avoid the criticisms someone with a good education can make of JW doctrine and history.
I feel most comfortable here
Since when was truth comfortable? A nice little niche where you don't ever take the risk of REALLY finding out if we're all mad and deranged apostates, or whether the religion you are in, that most of us were in, is, at the very least NOT god's only channel of communication, and certainly reprehensible in terms of organisation ethics.
You know the Matrix? Red pill, blue pill; you choose.
I'm in good standing with every congregation I've been in, I'm steadily increasing my hours, and I adore the ministry. After being in close association with other college students, it's a relief to be around folks who aren't focused on smoking drinking and fornicating. In whose company one can enjoy a pleasant evening of humor, good food (cause I always eat good with the Witnesses), and yes that word 'uplifting' speech.
It's very warm and comforting isn't it? You can find the same in many families of Baptists, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Atheists. If found my first exposure to worldly people, when taken out of a strict work or school context (I worked in a night club, and invariably you socialise after the night's finished, and socialise with patrons), made me see that people who didn't even know me, casual acquaintances, were capable of more tolerant and accepting relationships, and did good things because they liked doing good things, not because they were following rules. And they were good people. by and large, even if a book written by a bronze-age goatherd would call them bad for some parts of their life.
And now here I am posting on what is technically a very apostate website. So. What do you make of it?
Underneath the surface you may already have integrated enough information to know if one half of what is said here is true, but having it there under the surface and bringing it out so you have to go and do something about it are two different things.
When you read through Genesis, it must be clear that Jehovah (I don't care it's incorrect pronounciation) doesn't like the wimps.
Jehovah isn't the correct pronunciation either. You have a brain; use it. Doesn't it annoy you when you realise you've given a 'stock' response without actually thinking about it?
Oh, hell, let's go further into the Bible than Genesis and see how much you know. How does Jehovah not liking wimps come into the occasion he ordered (during the ethnic cleansing of the 'Promised Land' - and think about me using that discriptor as it's what we'd call genocide today) a city to be attacked, and all the people killed unless they were virgin girls. If you know your Mosaic Law and what was considered 'marriageable age' back then, then you can see that these virgin girls became concubines at an early age. Does the rape of 12 year-olds by the soldiers who had killed their family get explained away so glibly as wiping out all life on Earth in Genesis does?
Or do I have to tell you the scriptures that recount the story I tell you above? If you interpret the Bible literally, then do that to the nasty bits as well as the nice ones and see if your opinions still make sense. You're meant to have accurate knowledge.
I'm not avoiding it. It seems I'm just not up to par with the answering standards here.
Evasion; don't sell yourself so short. Like AuldSoul says, you might like to characterise it differently, but you evaded anything too difficult or troubling to answer. There is no blue and red stripy pill Darcey. You either have to take this seriously and investigate what we say and the validity of your beliefs (red pill), or kid yourself for the rest of your time as a JW that we are wrong without ever bothering to 'make sure of all thinbgs'.
Y'all ought to know I'm not able to defend every dumb thing WTS has done. In fact, I'm not going to. I'll rehash that I didn't register on the site to be the avenging angel of the Governing Body. Ok.
Then the question arises; why do you endorse the JW's claims of being the only god-inspired religion by not only your membership but your preaching work? If you don't back their claims why are you representing them? Isn't it a tad hypocritical or deceptive to present one message on the doors and hold another opinion in your heart? Would you find a Republican supporter canvassing door-to-door in the next US Election at all credible (as a Republican) if they disagreed with fundamental and important parts of Republican policy? Of course not. Why do you get to exercise what seems to be a double standard? Is it because if you DON'T go on the doors, you'll get hassled? So you HAVE to go on the doors and represent things you DON'T believe in? I can understand you doing this... WE MOSTLY ALL DID AT ONE POINT... but the hypocracy gets too much in the end. And note, this dichotomy may exist in other religious people of other groups; they might not believe everything their religion teaches. BUT they do not generally preach what they don't believe in, and they will generally not be thrown out of the religion they practise for not believing all official doctrine. If you were honest about your doubts in the Congregation and spoke to others, you'd end up being disfellowshipped. You may at this point automatically be responding internally with something like 'to keep the congregation clean' - but from what? The JW's have no valid claim to being god spokespeople on Earth; if they have, prove it. Despite this lack of valid claim, they will throw people out who disagree with what they say - and they base this right to dis-fellowship ON THE SAME CLAIM of being god's spokespeople on Earth!
They can't prove that claim but will use that claim to throw out people who disagree with them. Can you see the circular (and thus invalid) logic?
In addition, what sort of response would make you happy?
A comprehensive one that doesn't sell yourself short.
Would you like me to just give it all up right now?
No, I'd like you to do some proper research on the subject and come to your own opinion rather than doing what you've been trained to do as a Dubbie, or what we tell you to. No one here (apart from one or two fundie Christians who are selling their brand of Christianity to anyone foolish enough to listen) is telling what to end up believing; they're telling what NOT to believe, as from personal experience they know it is rubbish.
To denounce?You don't have enough information to be able to denounce us or the JW's yet; thus the requirement for you to either ignore the entire thing and run back to the safety of the congregation (until you do get your wings clipped for being a free spirit as surely will happen eventually), or to take this seriously and investigate what you believe and what we say and reach a conclusion. Take the example of the Boreans; they investigated the claims made by the Disciples of Jesus seriously using the material that was available to them. You should do the same.
To curse God and die?
Why do you assume the JW's have anything more or less to do with god than the next religion?
To curse WTS?
Was 'god' and 'WTS' in order of importance? And please show me in the Bible the words 'god's earthy organisation', or anything that resemble it.
Please don't take this as me being annoyed or angry; I'm just direct and think you'd despise me talking down to you or sugar-coating it. I'm genuinely interested in your reaction. And remember, many of us have been in exactly your position; my parents and Congos I grew up in were liberal as far as it went. I COULD have lived life there and not been challenged to the extent I questioned my beliefs. JW's are very insular socially and don't get their views seriously challenged very often (someone disagreeing with you on the doors isn't a serious challenge) as internal dissent is forbidden. I moved out of that safe environment and found I increasingly doubted, and the more I learnt the more I doubted. As we have been where you have been, give us the same credit for intelligence that you are being given. If we are wrong, then you will firmly establish your faith; like I say, 'truth' need not hide.
I appreciate that you don't want to be the "avenging angel" of Dub theology. However, you posted that you teach other people (in the ministry) the very doctrine that you seem unwilling to substantiate to those who actually know enough to reject it as untrue, destructive to relaionships, and in some cases outrightly dangerous.
Perhaps you haven't considered this from the viewpoint of someone who reads that you are teaching to others that which you cannot substantiate. Does that seem intellectually sensible to you? You seek out those who don't know enough to reject this unscriptural doctrine and you teach it to them. Even if you are open-minded enough to know better than to buy into all the crap in the spiritual feeding trough that flows from the Writing Committee fingertips, are those you teach going to be so open-minded? Or do you, rather, pretend to them that you do believe doctrine that you are actually not entirely certain of?
If it seems that I am painting you as a hypocrite please revise that image to "behaving hypocritically in some respects." I think you are very sincere, but that you have chosen that which is comfortable over that which is noble. Your comfort level is likely determined more by the freeness of association with childhood friends and with your family members than with any comfort gleaned from adherence to doctrine or policy. But is that any reason to speak lies to strangers as though the lies are lifesaving truths? Is that comfort bred from familiarity cause to encourage ignorant householders to attach themselves to an organization that teaches its members not to harbor any private ideas about Scriptural understanding?
Watchtower August 1, 2001, p. 14, par. 8 8 First, since “oneness” is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave.” By regularly taking in the spiritual food provided “at the proper time”—through Christian publications, meetings, assemblies, and conventions—we can be sure that we maintain “oneness” with fellow Christians in faith and knowledge.—Matthew 24:45.
This has been used as basis to both disfellowship and announce some as disassociated from Jehovah's Witnesses. If you felt free among Jehovah's Witnesses, you would be disfellowshipped for your freedom. Why do you think you feel more free to blab your true feelings here than you do at the Kingdom Hall? Why are your responses there carefully filtered for whether they adhere to organizational dogma?
The reason you want to speak in a forum that has no expectations of you is because you can speak freely here, in anonimity, in hiding. From who? You know what I am saying. You harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. I noticed that you seemed to have a problem with some posting old information (even when such information is still current doctrine). Is 2001 current enough for your tastes?
You are in a cult. If you are encouraging others to become Jehovah's Witnesses, you are encouraging them to join the cult you were raised in. You seem to have no better excuse than your personal comfort level for being a public recruitment agent for your cult. In my opinion, this demonstrates that there are some gaps in your logic. Some chasmal gaps in your logic.
I invite you to demonstrate your reason for confidence in the soundness of their doctrine. This is important to me because you confidently present their doctrine to strangers who don't know any better. I am not trying to get you to support their doctrine, that is why I raised the points I raised. With the bolded issues I brought to the fore on page 6 of these posts, there is no Scriptural support for their doctrine. Even they do not offer Scriptural support for these doctrines, so I am certain that you cannot. And yet, they are part of the doctrine that you encourage your neighbors to adopt as their own.
I freely admit to my attempt to disrupt your comfort level, but not because I dislike you or want bad things for you. It is because I care deeply about whether anyone else gets sucked into this self-destructive religion, and you strike me as the sort of person who would have greater than ordinary success in the house-to-house preaching work. The fact that you cannot conscientiously state that you believe everything they teach is reason enough, in my opinion, for you to strictly avoid any chance of leading someone else to them.
Welcome, darcy. I've been holding back because I still can't get a "read" on you. On one hand you seem to be fairly nonchalant about your Witnessisms, and welcome our comments on your choice. On the other hand, you skirt all depth. You've barely skimmed the cream off the "milk of the word".
What subjects do you enjoy most at school? Do you find pleasure in research? What are your highest hopes and dreams? Do you want a life partner? What will his beliefs be like? What are you about, darcy?