Posts by seattleniceguy

Belief in the JW sense entails trying to see what one wishes were there. Desperately hoping for something, as if sheer longing alone will make it true, strikes me as a sad and vain way to live. I would much rather approach the reality with open eyes and try as hard as possible to understand what is actually there.

In the classic Greek play Oedipus Rex, Oedipus learns a tragic truth about his father and mother. The play asks the question, would it have been better to remain ignorant? Is ignorance truly bliss? As a general principle, I believe that knowledge is always better than ignorance, even if the knowledge is distasteful, because the knowledge allows you to make informed, practical decisions. If you spend your life inside a set of untrue beliefs, over the course of your life, you will make many large decisions based on false premises. Becoming aware that your belief system is false is very painful, but it allows you to bring your worldview into greater harmony with reality. You can avoid the pain and loss that would have resulted from making life-altering decisions based on a faulty map. And the experience of changing your worldview causes you to grow and accept that in the future, you may need to make similar adjustments.

You might be interested in reading M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled. He writes about the pain of discarding cherished, but outdated, worldviews and the growth that takes place through the act. Changing one's views is one of the hardest things to do in life, he argues, and as a result, most people avoid it at all costs after settling into a comfortable one around the end of their teenage years. But there are certain types of growth that are impossible for a person who is unwilling to reassess their worldview from time to time and make fundamental changes.

I certainly understand where you're coming from. When I was first exiting, I had moments of wishing, "If only it were true!" But I think once you've really seen it from the outside, you'll be glad you saw it for what it was.

SNG

37

Do you believe in Karma? Why or why not?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i haven't read up on it, and my only exposure to it is a few people that say they believe in it.

correct my amateurish view of it, please.. karma is the overriding force in the universe that keeps the good/evil scales in balance.

if you do something rotten, you'll get something rotten back on you.

seattleniceguy

Hey Dave,

When I was first out of the organization, I went to a presentation on Buddhism - incidentally, it took place across the street from the Kingdom Hall on a meeting night - and the lecturer spent a good deal of time talking about Karma. I wrote up some notes about it when I got home that evening, in my personal journal. Obviously, I'm no expert, but this is what I got out of the presentation:

Buddhism says that there are seven streams of pain in the world:
1. Birth
2. Aging
3. Sickness
4. Death
5. The fact that we have to confront situations we would rather not.
6. The fact that situations we enjoy end.
7. The fact that it is impossible to fully satiate our desires.
Karma says that every action or thought we have sows a seed – either a positive seed or a negative one. The seeds will eventually find expression when the external conditions are ripe. For example, having angry feelings sows seeds of anger, even if they are not expressed at the moment. When external conditions appear that are conducive to expressing the anger, it will be expressed.
Bad karma has four negative consequences:
1. Maturation result (negative karma going forward)
2. The result corresponding to the initial act (hitting someone produces the likelihood of receiving similar treatment yourself).
3. The result corresponding to the initial experience (hitting someone makes it more likely that you will hit someone again).
4. Environmental results (hitting someone means you must now live in a world where people hit each other).
Of these, the worst is considered the third, because it means that doing something bad makes it more likely that you will do something bad again, creating a cycle of bad karma.

Like many of the others on this thread, I find the concept of Karma to be appealing in some ways, but in my mind, the problem with the definition that goes beyond normal cause-and-effect is that it requires some kind of universal score-keeper, which I don't think exists. Also, the idea that everyone really gets their just desserts in the next life sounds a whole lot like a cop-out invented to handle the reality that people don't always get their just desserts in this life. In other words, creative license to make the philosophy work.

I believe in a brand of Karma that is strictly down-to-earth. People who are open and honest are likely to see and take advantage of opportunities to improve themselves, be good neighbors and citizens, find satisfying work, and so on. People who are dishonest and unsavory will tend to push others away, limiting their enjoyment of human relationships and life. But this kind of cause-and-effect is so straightforrward that it hardly bears having a special name. It would be easier to just call it "the way things are."

Just some ramblings.

SNG

139

Add an Awake caption here!

by doodle-v in

jw
friends

here is the original one:.

here is a blank one for you to add a caption to:.

have fun!

seattleniceguy

A Time To Speak: Bethel Elders Break Their Silence

14

What's the Society's beef - The act of going to college OR getting a degree

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

i have a question - the society laments about those jw's who ignore "wisdom from above" to pioneer after high school but go to college instead.. they use a fictional account of timothy rejecting higher education at the drama this year.. they scream in the oct 1st wt that university (consisting of four years) is bad and ask rheotorical questions to parents such as, "christian parents, is this what you really want for your children?".

if the act of going to college campus was so bad, why doesn't the society permit "online degrees?

" - these are more cost effective and just as valuable as a traditional campus based ecuation.. so what is it about going to university that really upsets them?.

seattleniceguy

Oh. My.

For instance, does higher learning help you to be a good parent, mate or friend? For that matter, people admired for their intellectual achievements may develop undesirable personality traits, fail in their family life, or even end up committing suicide.

This is the absolute height of absurdity. These guys are sounding more like the North Korean Ministry of Information all the time. Well, I say, keep it coming. Hopefully it will wake up the reasonable ones.

SNG

17

Re: Witness Youth and Education

by Inquisitor in

the wts would prefer to believe they possess a balanced view of education.

"no hard-and-fast rules should be made either for or against extra education" w92 11/1 p.15

it has even acknowledged that college education may be necessary in certain job markets today.

seattleniceguy

Inquisitor,

Great post, and welcome to the board.

I think you make a great point about what the Society is truly pushing. On a lot of issues (another example is the internet), the Society knows that a completely hardline position would be seen as unreasonable by people both inside and outside the religion. So they are careful to print softer statements once in a while to present the appearance of a more balanced position. However, it's easy to see what the actual position is by observing the culture in the hall, which is affected by non-printed materials, such as talks at the assemblies and visits by the CO.

For example, how many times have you heard a CO talk like this: "Now, brothers, the April 19xx WT says that it is possible to attend college and maintain our faithfulness to God. But is the Society really saying that we should all attend college? Hasn't the Society's position always been that we should put Kingdom interests first, and use our time to pioneer?" Etc, etc. So the spoken instruction can be used to countermand the written instruction, which remains as a mere showpiece to make outsiders believe that the position is more lenient than it actually is.

Another advantage to this double-speak is that later, when people are angry that they didn't go to college and are still washing windows at 60 years of age, the Society can point back to a few snippets and say, "Hey, we didn't tell you not to go to college. We said it was a conscience matter."

The point is, the culture in the halls is carefully constructed and maintained. And by intentionally never praising youths that do go to college, they implicitly show that this is not truly an acceptable path. JWs who choose to go to college will be considered fringe, mildly rebellious, half-Witnesses, not quite as spiritual as young John and Jane Pioneercouple. So although the Society sometimes prints concilliatory statements, its true position on college is clear.

SNG

37

The Watchtower's Unbalanced View of the Internet

by VM44 in

in articles concerning the internet, some of which have been titled "a balanced view of the internet", the watchtower devotes the first paragraph or two to the benefits that the internet offers and has provided.

.

then for the rest of the article they go on and on about the dangers and evils of the internet.. they have been consistent in writing in this manner in all the articles they have written concerning the internet.. can the watchtower itself truly be said to have a "balanced" view of the internet?.

seattleniceguy

R6,

I think this article is masterfully written as a propaganda piece. After two brief paragraphs describing the potential usefulness of the Internet. They quickly revert to an extremely cautionary position, with

Generally, the more powerful a tool is, the more dangerous it can be.

And indeed, the article never again returns to any positive points. The structure of the article is:

The internet can sometimes be a useful tool. Some people use it to do X and Y. However, there are serious risks involved, which are A and B and C and D and E (elaborated extensively). As a result, some have chosen not to use the Internet at all.

Now, as a loyal Witness is trying to determine what the Society feels about the Internet, it should be clear that they are strongly against it. Since Witnesses are trained to read between the lines, the hard-liners will see this as a confirmation that the Internet should be avoided. But what about the next statement?

However, it must be acknowledged that only a small percentage of sites on the Internet pose a danger and that most users have not experienced serious problems.

This sentence is there to appease the people who work with the Internet every day and who would see the hardline position as unreasonable. Keep in mind that this one concilliatory sentence follows a dozen paragraphs of negative information. It's purpose is to provide a little bit of wiggle-room, but the article definitely serves to create or strengthen an "Internet-discouraging" culture.

Think about it this way. If such articles did not have such an effect, we should expect Witness rates of Internet use to be about the same as the general population. Of course, it is difficult to obtain demographic data on the Witnesses (since elders have been instructed to refuse to reply to such research requests), but I think most of us here would agree that Internet usage among the Witnesses is very restricted, certainly not approaching the "55% of American households" figure published in the 2003 census.

Obviously, caution should be used when using the Internet. And as you point out, there are dozens of articles published by different organizations that describe how to avoid the dangers. But it is possible to write such articles in a way that clearly embraces the Internet. This article was written in a way that clearly discourages its use, while grudgingly admitting that there are some practical applications. Witnesses get the point. The paragraphs on the dangers of the Internet do not read as helpful tips, but as a list of reasons not to use it at all.

Propaganda pieces are always written in such a way that they can be taken in different ways. The most effective ones are written such that insiders and outsiders walk away with completely different understandings of the thrust of the article. Judging by the culture effected by this and other similar articles, I think it is safe to say that Witnesses are reading these articles as "do not touch unless absolutely necessary" directives.

SNG

15

I'm livid & angry & sick!!!

by mamochan13 in

i've finally had the opportunity to read the october 1, 2005 watchtower regarding education.

even though this board had already prepared me for what i was going to be seeing, it still surprised me.

i cannot believe that they are still demonizing post secondary education.

seattleniceguy

I believe that the way this religion discourages children from taking opportunities is one of its saddest effects. The old men in Brooklyn can make such decrees with impunity. They don't have to try to make a living in the real world. They don't have to face hospital bills or retirement. They don't need to worry about where their next meal will come from. It's easy for them to discourage education from their office headquarters, where they have everything they need.

In my old hall there was a couple with a little kid, about six years old. He was just a great little guy. He was really smart and well-spoken, and even at his young age, you could see that he had the makings of big things written all over him. It breaks my heart now to think about all the kids like this who will grow up in an environment that heavily discourages them from going to school, from finding a fulfilling career, from making a difference in the world. The sheer waste of such potential is staggering. Taking such promising raw material and forcing it into a shallow mould of pioneer drudgery -- the loss of human life is terrible and real.

SNG

37

The Watchtower's Unbalanced View of the Internet

by VM44 in

in articles concerning the internet, some of which have been titled "a balanced view of the internet", the watchtower devotes the first paragraph or two to the benefits that the internet offers and has provided.

.

then for the rest of the article they go on and on about the dangers and evils of the internet.. they have been consistent in writing in this manner in all the articles they have written concerning the internet.. can the watchtower itself truly be said to have a "balanced" view of the internet?.

seattleniceguy

Go online using a notebook, and you will start smoking?

Those computer people are the worst! With their "laptop computers" and their "fancy shirts" and their "cigarettes" (doing finger-quotes)...! Look at that disrespectful leg position and shameless bracelet. Obviously worldly!

SNG

11

Sabotaging one's life...

by Frog in

jw
friends

i think that if i don't take the time to post this one out of me i may very well implode:(.

gosh i feel so bloody awful at the moment, and i apologise for laying this on my friends here when i know you all have your own ordeals to deal with.. i've been feeling intensley anxious lately about going home to visit my family at the end of the year.

there's going to be a bit of a family reunion in my home town, which will mainly consist of my immediate family (my never been baptised brother, my disfellowshipped self, and my fence sitter baptised father) and my uncles family (once an elder of 20years, my aunty, their two 20somethings sons who've never been baptised, and my cousin who like me was diss'd a few or so years ago).

seattleniceguy

Hi Frog,

I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I recently saw some Witness relatives in the hospital, and it is definitely emotionally draining to see the old mindset in action. At the same time, it does sound like part of your uncle is trying to break free. Of course, that doesn't make it easier to deal with the attitudes, but at least it helps you understand the situation, because you know what forces are at play in a still-indoctrinated mind.

Much good could come out of this. It sounds like much of your family is taking a public stand against the practice of shunning. If this continues into a grass-roots rebellion, there will be little that the organization can do to stop it. So, I guess my take is, hang in there, don't push yourself too hard, and I really hope everything goes okay for your during their stay.

Hugs,

SNG