Watchtower: "Google is like a mushroom picker"

by cedars 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • sd-7
    sd-7

    Well, if you have basic reading ability, you can sort out a lot of information without even having to click on each link. It's usually not that hard to determine if a site has useful information just from the heading.

    Maybe we could make the same argument about the Watchtower Library CD...especially given how many of the articles you'll find in a search may contain information that is now false even by JW standards.

    I never really understood the paranoia towards the Internet even when I was on the inside. I eventually figured out the immense capacity for danger as far as porn was concerned, but otherwise, it seemed like a cool and fun place to be, so long as you used common sense. As for worries about stumbling across 'apostate' sites or something, more than likely, just like porn, you'll only go to them if you really want to in the first place. They're not going to seek you out.

    Of course, I remember Googling 'Jehovah's Witnesses' years ago and seeing exit counseling sites and being a little horrified, wondering who would need exit counseling...while simultaneously thinking, well, if you did get cut off from everyone you know, you'd need some kind of emotional support, but eh, ignore that! Not ready to go down that road...

    Just think of what would happen if you used critical, independent thinking while reading "food at the proper time". You might come to rely upon your own reasoning rather than trusting in the solid foundation of God's Word. Soon, a presumptuous, disloyal spirit might poison your attitude towards Jehovah's organization. How tragic it would be if a critical, suspicious attitude caused us to draw away from Jehovah!

    --sd-7

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    I never really understood the paranoia towards the Internet even when I was on the inside.

    Many years before I learned anything about the Watchtower I remember wondering about wedding rings. I googled "wedding ring roots" or something like that. Coincidently a search result was an article about the double standard of Jehovah's Witnesses and their use of wedding rings. My hands started shaking and my chest tightened up as I saw the title. I was so petrified of the link that I closed the browser and decided not to search anymore.

    -Sab

  • sd-7
    sd-7

    Yeah, but...there was starwars.com. And natalieportman.com. And...well, around 10 years ago, there was CollegeClub.com. And beautifulcelebrities.com. But those two are gone now...at least in their original forms.

    But I figured out through other means that the Society was lying about stuff. Once I saw that, via the literature itself, I went along with it but was never quite the same. I suppose that did happen because of a girl I met on the Internet, so...I guess we could blame the Internet anyway...

    --sd-7

  • Sapphy
    Sapphy

    Google is like a mushroom picker? As an illustration it doesn't immediately spring to mind - wonder why they ignored the more obvious analogy.

    Google is like a dragnet catching fine fish and bad. Let us then, brothers, act like the Angels and sort the good information from bad...

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    CollegeClub! I was addicted to that service for about a year between 15 and 16. That brings me back.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Google is like a dragnet catching fine fish and bad. Let us then, brothers, act like the Angels and sort the good information from bad...

    You should be a Circuit Overseer!

    -Sab

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    "Do not become an "Internet Eve."

    OMG THAT IS THE FUNNIEST THING THEY HAVE EVER PUBLISHED!!!!

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    Nicely done, cedars.

  • spanteach
    spanteach

    Who are they kidding with this?? "Internet Eve" sounds like the day before a really fun holiday where you get to sleep in the next day. Let's break out the tunes, the drinks, then tinsel and have a good time! Happy Internet Eve, everybody!

  • cedars
    cedars

    It's usually not that hard to determine if a site has useful information just from the heading.

    Well that's how everyone thinks (and indeed how search engines are designed), but evidently not the Society. How on earth can you "carefully examine" each undividual search result (or "mushroom") without clicking on the link and seeing if it is of relevance yourself? How many pages of search results you are supposed to comb through in such a manner is anybody's guess. I'm sure this isn't what the society intended in the illustration, but they don't explain exactly how the illustration should be applied in practicality.

    I think they got excited when they thought of the concept of mushroom pickers but didn't really lend much consideration to how the analogy would unfold when it came to practical application, like so many of their illustrations.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit