seattleniceguy

Joined

• started 121 topics
• posted 2,050 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by seattleniceguy

• 
  52

  Why are honest questions considered apostasy?

  by Rayvin in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  this is why as i was growing up (raised in "the truth") i never asked questions.

  i never understood the birthday issue among other holidays.

  i never asked because i was scared i would be looked at as an apostate or as someone being worn down by the wicked association.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Also, just wanted to add my welcome to Rayvin and out-of-the-box!

  SNG
• 
  52

  Why are honest questions considered apostasy?

  by Rayvin in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  this is why as i was growing up (raised in "the truth") i never asked questions.

  i never understood the birthday issue among other holidays.

  i never asked because i was scared i would be looked at as an apostate or as someone being worn down by the wicked association.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  gespro,

  SNG said: The fact of the matter is that asking questions can never be dishonest.

  gespro said: The jury over here is still out on this one...could you explain? [I'm not trying to be a wiseguy but I'm not understanding this statement...]

  I was hoping someone would call me on this so I would get to explain myself in better detail. A question is a request for information. As a request, it is not possible for it to be dishonest, because you are asking for information, not conveying it. Sometimes people phrase questions so as to include statements of opinion or fact, and sometimes the question itself makes implicit assumptions, but the request for information can never be anything more than that - a simple request.

  For example, take the slyly worded question, "When did you stop smoking cigarettes?" Some may feel that this is a dishonest question, since it includes the implicit assumption that smoking occurred. But it is possible to answer honestly and straightforwardly by simply saying, "Your question makes a faulty assumption. I never smoked cigarettes to begin with, so it was not necessary to stop."

  Or, you could consider this question really as three questions:
  1. Did you smoke cigarettes?
  2. If yes, did you stop?
  3. If yes, when did you stop?

  Each of these is a simple request for information that can be answered straightforwardly. None of them has any "deceit" or "dishonesty" in them, because a true question cannot contain such. A person who is willing to share his or her tobacco history with you should have no problem answering these questions, and it would be ludicrous to impugn the motives of the person asking these questions. But notice that it is in the answer, not the question, that the opportunity for dishonesty comes, since the answer is the part where the new information is conveyed.

  Let's consider a line of questioning JWs would likely brand "dishonest."

  1. Why did Society become an NGO of the United Nations?
  2. Why did they withdraw their membership just days after their membership was exposed in The Guardian in October 2001?
  3. Why did they never explain the facts to rank-and-file Witnesses, who are understandably shocked to learn of this association?
  4. Given that a person could be disfellowshipped for being a member of the YMCA, how does the Society explain their decade-long association with the UN?

  I think I pushed this line far enough that most JWs would be offended and refuse to answer, labeling the questions as "apostate" or "dishonest," etc, etc. But look at the questions closely. Where has the dishonestly occurred?

  The real reason that these questions are considered "dishonest" is that the answers are distasteful to the Society. Instead of honestly answering them, or even admitting that they simply don't want to answer them, they turn the guilt around on the questioner - itself a dishonest tactic.

  So to return to your question and review in brief: a question is a request for information. Sometimes it is accompanied by a statement or implication (as in my first UN question above), but the question itself is not and cannot be dishonest because it does not convey information.

  SNG
• 
  52

  Why are honest questions considered apostasy?

  by Rayvin in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  this is why as i was growing up (raised in "the truth") i never asked questions.

  i never understood the birthday issue among other holidays.

  i never asked because i was scared i would be looked at as an apostate or as someone being worn down by the wicked association.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  All questions deserve honest answers, especially when the information directly impacts the life of the person asking. However, to JWs, a question becomes "apostate" when it is perceived to lead logically to a conclusion out of line with the WT agenda. For example,

  Question: "Why did the Society register as an NGO with the United Nations?"

  This is an honest question, one that deserves a clear, straightforward answer, in light of the obvious issues it raises. The problem for the person answering this question is that it is impossible to answer it accurately and straightforwardly without the risk of negative consequences for the organization. Therefore, in cases such as these WT apologists rely on smokescreens, name calling, and subject changing, to avoid answering the question.

  The fact of the matter is that asking questions can never be dishonest. Refusing to answer them, however, is. Turning around and attempting to impugn the motives of the person asking the question is an absurd mockery of true honesty.

  People that cannot answer questions straightforwardly usually have something to hide. By putting the blame on the person asking a question whenever it does not like where the answer may lead, the Society shows what it is truly made of.

  SNG
• 
  15

  Anti-Apostate Leaflet for Convention

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am working on an anti-apostate leaflet to deflect attention from all those pesky apostates who will be swarming at the convention tomorrow.

  keep on the alert - apostates about!

  but if we are prepared for what they will say, we can deflect their wicked claims.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  LOL...Has slim finally come around? Nice work! Let us know if you use it!

  SNG
• 
  18

  The Dying (and Dumb) Awake magazine (Aug 8 '05)

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  well, yet another awake has arrived giving us all the chance to speculate that .

  "jehovah's organization" may be getting "too stupid to live".. this month's jawdropper concerns the article "is astrology the key to your future?".

  consider this negative appraisal of astrology:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Well, back in 1998 (Jan 8) the Awake listed

  that it was published in 38 semimonthly languages and 31 monthly languages.

  Today? The latest issue lists 37 semimonthly and 22 monthly languages.

  Really? Curious. I'd say that's quantitative evidence that the WT is being forced to scale back. I guess not as many people need life's waters free as before, eh? :-)

  SNG
• 
  46

  "Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  don't get me wrong here.

  nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

  they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey Rod,

  Sorry if my comments came off as a bit snippy. Lately I have been frustrated by fundamentalist-types who grasp at straws, trying to poo-poo science because it reveals certain things they don't like. I also have a cousin who is into pseudo-science who loves to imagine that his heros are being persecuted by the main-streamers, who haughtily (and baselessly, of course) refuse to consider their "theories."

  And so, because of the area I wish to lead into on other stand-alone threads having to do with the Big Bang theory, and Einstein's theory of Relativity, I would say that these are the kinds of topics that are basically on the relative frontiers of science, where there are still a lot of possibilities beyond what is currently being taught vis-a-vis the textbooks. All the more reason why new and different ideas should not only be tolerated, but even invited into the participation. I would only ask that due consideration be given to viewpoints that may be offered by those who are not considered part of the "establishment" or the academic elite. We might even learn something during the exercise.

  To tell you the truth, I would be a bit relieved (and in any case extremely interested) if there was a better theory than General Relativity, because it makes predictions that are very hard for me to understand. It's a tall order, however, since GR has been so thoroughly useful so far. And even the weirder aspects of it like time dilation have been proven time and time again.

  It is possible for me to imagine, however, that the concept of planets sitting atop a mesh of space-time, producing gravity by warping it, is really nothing more than a useful metaphor, and that there might be an even more useful one. I guess that's the challenge for any would-be successor: it needs to work even better than GR. So I certainly look forward to hearing what you have. :-)

  SNG
• 
  63

  What do you miss most about being in the truth ?

  by prophecor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  every once in a while, i'll drive thru the blocks of our old territory, remebering the friends, how we would share time in the ministry.

  reminiscing about those i left.

  every so often, i'll pull out the old photographs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey prophecor,

  To tell you the truth, I don't miss anything about the Witnesses. Sometimes I miss the people that were my friends, but the religion was inhibiting in every possible respect. It's almost like they bent over backwards to be unhealthy. Live is much, much better on the other side.

  SNG
• 
  20

  are you pessimistic or optimistic about the future?

  by nowisee in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i just saw a documentary called "the corporation".

  very disturbing.. one premise put forth likened our reality to those who first experimented with flying.

  they formed contraptions with wings and jumped off cliffs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  I am optimistic. I believe that we are, on balance, better off than we were in the past, that the slope in generally upward.

  I believe that the key to advancement of all types is knowledge. Witness the changes that happened between the dark ages and the Rennaisance, which were tied to secularization and sharing of knowledge.

  Modern technology, particularly the Internet, provides access to knowledge as never before.

  Falsehood cannot stand in the light of knowledge.

  It has been, and will be, a struggle, but I believe that eventually extreme ideologies will be overcome and humans will become, on average, more moderate and healthy.

  May we each contribute to such a future in whatever way we can!

  SNG
• 
  46

  "Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  don't get me wrong here.

  nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

  they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  kid-a,

  Thank you for your comments. I appreciated hearing the voice of someone who is personally involved in the field as a professional.

  Your comments about considering the value of science when you turn on your air conditioner, use medicine, etc, resonated with me because I have been thinking about the same thing lately. What I would say to science disbelievers is: science is a good system because it is manifestly real. We would not be able to build tiny chips with millions of transistors that can use laser beams to read DVDs with billions of tiny pits on them if the underlying theory were not true.

  I sometimes wonder whether certain people have any idea how many layers upon layers of science and technology underlie their every minute of life in the modern world. We did not develop airplanes and cutting-edge medical treatments by taking wild guesses. We researched, we developed theories that explained what we saw, we validated those theories in the lab millions of times over, and we used the knowledge to create practical applications. Then others came after us, did more research, refined the theories, and built even better applications.

  There are some cases where politics influence science, but I believe that they are rare, for these reasons:

  • Scientists do what they do because they have a desire to learn.
  • Politicians could not possibly influence all branches of science. Science proceeds apace, and sometimes it ruffles some feathers, and some of those times political pressure is brought to bear. Witness Galileo vs. the Catholic Church. But that did not stop science in the long term, even if it was a temporary setback. Politics is temporary; knowledge is forever.

  SNG
• 
  21

  1975

  by Grouper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i am researching 1975 and i was curious to ask any that served as elder back then in the wtbts ever issue a directive to the congregations to stop or discourage believers from selling their property, cashing out retirements, early marriage, quiting jobs, etc., etc.................. thanks

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Grouper,

  Two good references on this subject:

  What the Society actually published, in its entirety, on 1975:
  http://quotes.watchtower.ca/1975.htm

  A good article that blends personal experience with some sociological perspective, and, of course, references:
  http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/1975.htm

  Hope that helps!

  SNG