Introduction and a note on several posts here

by LizO 95 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  jgnat

  I prefer the devastating truth over exaggeration, too.

  I find Jehovah's Witnesses gloss over their organization's excesses and will tell whoppers to outsiders to make the organization appear more reasonable.

  I'll give a small example from my experience. (I'm not a JW by the way. I married one instead). My one time I was in a room with a bunch of elders was to force my husband to confess that he was already married...to me. The elders were caught off-guard to say the least, and fumbled with their scriptures a bit. Out of the blue one of the elders told me, "We treat everyone the same. For instance, I am a third generation Witness while George here is a convert." That sent up all sorts of red flags for me, and told me that indeed, there is a pecking order in the hall, and converts are treated differently. Otherwise, why would he bother to bring up their relative status? As I observed over the years, I noted that George got all the crap assignments, like administering supplementary book studies to those members who just didn't "get it". That included my husband (practically a pariah) and a Schizophrenic.
• 

  punkofnice

  LizO -

  I believe your post punkofnice (

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/256102/1/Were-Jehovahs-Witnesses-We-speak-out-in-fearlessness

  )

  is dishonest

  That's YOUR belief. I am entitled to MY belief am I not?

  by claiming with subtle voice

  'subtle voice' Ad hominem

  that Jehovas Witnesses would only preach where there is money.

  I'm sure honest JWs would preach anywhere. However, had you actually read what I put you'd see that I refer solely to the Governing Body(TM).

  This claim is definitely wrong according to my experience.

  Not according to mine. therefore you cannot accuse me of dishonesty (AD hominem), when I speak from personal experience having been an elder for some years before waking up.

  Do you really believe punkofnice that they are out there to raise money?

  Yes.

  And how do you think they enjoy their money then?

  Does 'Warwick' mean anything to you?

  Tell me where the GB live, how they live and how the GB are funded then please.

  It makes much more sense to discuss explicit and implicit doctrines and their effects on members.

  This is your opinion. Not everyone agrees.

  No offence intended. Just saying.
• 

  Xanthippe

  I understand Liz, you must think people here are impugning the motives of your friends who are pioneers, at Bethel, elders, on the circuit etc.

  I am not, but I have come accross this and I have defended pioneers to the hilt because I know what hard work it is and I personally had genuine motives. I thought I was saving lives, not in an arrogant way, just as a someone who cared about the people in my town.

  I don't have anything else to say except, hope everything is going well for you, I presume you're leaving if you no linger believe the Bible?
• 

  LizO

  @punkofnice

  Of course everyone is entitled to his own beliefs and we don't need to repeat that constantly. This doesn't mean we shouldn't call out one another when we believe that something doesn't make sense. We should strive for correct and consistent argumentation. Can you please lead me through your logic why Warwick explains how they enjoy the money they raise?

  @Xanthippe

  You are correct that I am leaving. On the other points, I don't ask for any respect or so for any of these people. I simply know that it is plain false that the majority would have improper motives. So, it's just ridiculous in my mind if people would reitarate that as fact.
• 

  punkofnice

  2) Every referral to "lies" (e.g. your last comment Julia Orwell) is wrong as well. People who know the organization and say that the leadership is deliberately saying false things is - as I believe - dishonest.

  As you say 'as I believe'. So just your opinion then. Yet you do not accept the opinions of others even if these opinions are backed with evidence.

  However, it's more what stillin says: The people are not delibaretely deceptive but have convinced themselves.

  Who are you referring to when you say 'the people'?

  If you refer to the leaders................then why do the publications use known propaganda techniques and logical fallacies?
• 

  punkofnice

  Of course everyone is entitled to his own beliefs and we don't need to repeat that constantly.

  Are you accusing someone of repetition?

  This doesn't mean we shouldn't call out one another when we believe that something doesn't make sense.

  It seems to me that the you only wish to discuss things on your own terms. I refuse.

  We should strive for correct and consistent argumentation.

  'Strive'. Yeah. 'Strive'.

  Can you please lead me through your logic why Warwick explains how they enjoy the money they raise?

  Answering a question with a question.

  Firstly, I asked a question. I made no statement. I want you to connect the dots or not....your choice. There are threads on the subject. Why not read them and make your own mind up. I am not into playing games.

  At the risk of being accused of repetition........

  What do you know about Warwick?

  Let me rephrase that. What is your perception of Warwick?
• 

  LizO

  @punkofnice: It's incorrect to say that I dont "accept" your opinion. You didn't ask me to "accept" it nor does anybody care if I "accept" it or not. I am just openly stating that I don't think there is any evidence for the specific statement you made and if you disagree I challenge you to provide the evidence.

  If you like, please give me the evidence on 2 points you mentioned above:

  1) Warwick as evidence on enjoyment of money

  2) (Yes, I refer to the leaders) Which specific arguments/texts prove that the leaders are delibereately deceptive? Every single person on earth can be attributed to have used such things ("propaganda techniques", "logical fallacies") to sell thoughts which he/she honestly believes in.
• 

  LizO

  @punkofnice

  Regarding your statement " Firstly, I asked a question. I made no statement...". It's sad that you are putting out such questions and then you are ducking away. In that way, you are clearly stating and judging, but you are keeping yourself enough room to manouvre yourself again out of the issue. It's exactly the same technique the Watchtower uses to promote certain behaviour without explicitly telling you what you have to do.

  On Warwick I told you, I don't see any connection to enjoyment of funds. They are moving the Bethel out of Brooklyn, most likely because with half the money they get from that they can build Warwick and the other half they can use for other activities. So, am I wrong?
• 

  2+2=5

  The GB are delusional fools.
• 

  punkofnice

  If you like, please give me the evidence on 2 points you mentioned above:

  Is it worth it? After all 'confirmation bias' will be the order of the day no matter how well an argument is presented.

  It's incorrect to say that I dont "accept" your opinion.

  I seem to such a terrible liar don't I?!?!