Posts by 00DAD

30

Whatever happened to the UN in JW prophecy?

by wha happened? in

is it me or is the un no longer the enemy?

when i was studying all i heard about was the un banning religions.

do any current articles discuss this anymore?.

00DAD

Hmm, interesting .... this thread got me wondering. So just now I wandered over to the Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site and searched "united nations" to see what I would find.

First of all, their search engine doesn't support true boolean searches. Even though I put the search string in quotes, it returned articles that had BOTH words in it, but not necessarily together as a string. The search gave 119 results. I only perused the first 10 and most of those articles had nothing to do with "the wild beast". Nevertheless, four of those ten did. Notice how "the beast" is portrayed by the WTBTS in these selected quotes from the Awake! magazine from 1999 through 2005:

An Ongoing Search for Solutions - "FROM its very inception, the United Nations organization has been interested in children and their problems. At the end of 1946, it established the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) as a temporary measure to care for children in areas devastated by war." - g2000 12/08
SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT - "Various organizations have also been sounding the alarm about threats to the environment. These include the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the United Nations Environment Programme; and Greenpeace. " - g2003 11/22
HOMELESSNESS: What Is Behind It? - "The book Strategies to Combat Homelessness, published by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, identifies a number of shortcomings of the present social, political, and economic system when it comes to providing homes for all. " - g2005 12/08
The Mediterranean—A Closed Sea With Open Wounds - "In 1990 the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) reported that 93 percent of shellfish taken from the Mediterranean contained more fecal bacteria than the maximum allowed by the World Health Organization." - g99 1/08

Amazing - they read like cheerleader articles for the UN! Surprising I didn't notice it then when I was still in, but then again that would probably be exactly why I didn't get it!

Again, I only scanned the first 10 articles that came up using the search string "united nations". But I think it is significant--huge even--that not a single quote or comment was anything less than neutral about "the beast" and generally they come across as favorable and supportive regarding the U.N., fawning even!

Tell me again, who is the whore on the back of the beast?

47

Islam More Lenient on Apostates than the WTBTS!

by 00DAD in

islam more lenient on apostates than the wtbts!.

this morning i came across this thought provoking comment in a cnn news article:.

harris zafar, national spokesperson of the ahmadiyya muslim community usa, does not mince words on the subject, stating in a huffington post opinion piece that "islam prescribes absolutely no punishment for apostasy.".

00DAD

soft+gentle, thank you for nicely summarizing the point I was trying to make and doing so in a, well, "soft and gentle" way!

47

Islam More Lenient on Apostates than the WTBTS!

by 00DAD in

islam more lenient on apostates than the wtbts!.

this morning i came across this thought provoking comment in a cnn news article:.

harris zafar, national spokesperson of the ahmadiyya muslim community usa, does not mince words on the subject, stating in a huffington post opinion piece that "islam prescribes absolutely no punishment for apostasy.".

00DAD

JT: I knew it, you're a friggin' lawyer. Actually, you're not even that yet, just a wannabe lawyer in training.

I'm not and AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID, DON'T WANT TO BE. I've know too many lawyers.

Your superior attitude is just the kind of thing I come here to get away from: brow-beating by a bunch of legalistic nonsense and never able to see the other person's point. And don't give me any of your crap about "don't get angry at the person." I encouraged you to re-read my article to try and understand the points I was trying to make and you respond with "my fellow law students and I ...." Way to ignore the issue and attack the person. Thanks too for the kind "You wouldn't last an hour" dig. Actually, it's much less. I wouldn't last a second because I hate lawyers. The always have to argue and never know when to shut-up.

Even now you're diverting from the topic and making it an argument about arguing, ... oh I'm sorry. It's not an argument, it's a "sharpening of your analyses". You remind me of my ex-wife. I bet you always have to have the last word too, just like her.

Go analyze that.

47

Islam More Lenient on Apostates than the WTBTS!

by 00DAD in

islam more lenient on apostates than the wtbts!.

this morning i came across this thought provoking comment in a cnn news article:.

harris zafar, national spokesperson of the ahmadiyya muslim community usa, does not mince words on the subject, stating in a huffington post opinion piece that "islam prescribes absolutely no punishment for apostasy.".

00DAD

JT - I wanted to add that you might want to re-read my original post. Because, except for the ambiguity of the thread Title (which I have already addressed above), my point was the JW's position on apostasy in contrast to that expressed by Mr. Zafar as a self-proclaimed spokesperson for Islam. It is Mr. Zafar that presumes to speak for all of Islam, not me.

Also, I acknowledged the diversity of views and interpretations among those professing to be muslims in the last sentence of my original post. Again, my post was about JWs and their treatment of dissenters, NOT about the diversity of beliefs and interpretations which are Islam. I merely used the one quote from the article to demonstrate a different point of view. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. Remember, this is JWN, not the Ex-Muslim Network.

Cheers,

Daniel

47

Islam More Lenient on Apostates than the WTBTS!

by 00DAD in

islam more lenient on apostates than the wtbts!.

this morning i came across this thought provoking comment in a cnn news article:.

harris zafar, national spokesperson of the ahmadiyya muslim community usa, does not mince words on the subject, stating in a huffington post opinion piece that "islam prescribes absolutely no punishment for apostasy.".

00DAD

Justitia Themis oh my goodness. Why is it YOU can make a comparison between Ahmadiyya Muslim's [Islamic sect] and JWs and that's OK, but my drawing a comparison with one Islamic "expert's" opinion is not? Never rmind. I already made my point.

Don't know why you want to pick a fight, but as I said, I'm not interested. Been there done that. You've apparently got too much time on your hands buddy.

That being said, thank you so much for alerting me to a "valid error in my comparison" in a legalistic, irritating and annoying way, Captain Obvious. Interesting that my "error" is so clear to you, but the point I was making was not. I only quoted one person on purpose. YOU quoted the entire article. The only possibly confusing part was my title. I already addressed that in my last post. I'm not incorrect or and didn't make any errors other than possibly responding to your baiting. This is about JWs not the diversity which is Islam. Get the clue.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Daniel

47

Islam More Lenient on Apostates than the WTBTS!

by 00DAD in

islam more lenient on apostates than the wtbts!.

this morning i came across this thought provoking comment in a cnn news article:.

harris zafar, national spokesperson of the ahmadiyya muslim community usa, does not mince words on the subject, stating in a huffington post opinion piece that "islam prescribes absolutely no punishment for apostasy.".

00DAD

JT, your interest in law is apparent.

Apparently my dis-interest is not, so allow me to make it so.

I was trying to make a point, not start an argument. Not interested. Been there, done that. For example, the expressions "talking-heads" and "legal experts" are not mutually exclusive terms, but for reason you seem to think they are. FYI: I read the article, yes the entire article. I was trying to make a specific point drawing a specific contrast between one persons opinion and the position of the WTBTS. That is why I only quoted the one statement. I did NOT one to stray off topic into the various interpretations of the Quran and/or Islamic Law. (BTW, you cannot compare apples-to-apples here anyway, because, as you noted, Islam is a broad group of beliefs comprised by many sects. JW tolerate no sectarianism. Which brings up another thread ...)

Perhaps you were led astray from the point I was attempting to make due to the ambiguity of my topic title. I suppose in retrospect, I should have ended the title with a question mark instead: Islam More Lenient on Apostates than the WTBTS? Please accept my humble apologies.

However, you must realize that headlines and titles are like that. That being said, the title of the article in question is equally problematic. I posit that instead of reading, "Pastor's possible execution reveals nuances of Islamic law" it should read something more like:

"Pastor's possible execution reveals irreconcilable conflict within Islam due to diverse and contradictory interpretations of Islamic law - man likely to be put to death because the 'leaders and experts' of that religion cannot agree on what 'apostasy' is or how it should be dealt with"

Not a good sound bite, but maybe that's just me.

How's life over in Uzbekistan?

Cheers,

Daniel

15

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses on WIKIPEDIA

by jakeyen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/criticism_of_jehovah's_witnesses.

a nice read, anyone could benefit from.

can someone update it regarding "mentally disease", maybe cedars / others can help update.

00DAD

Umm, Andre, how can the "All of the publications can be ... verified easily" when there are NO SOURCES CITED?

Oh, I know, we can just look it up on the WT CD-ROM.

Andre, you're an idiot - now go to your room!!!

15

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses on WIKIPEDIA

by jakeyen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/criticism_of_jehovah's_witnesses.

a nice read, anyone could benefit from.

can someone update it regarding "mentally disease", maybe cedars / others can help update.

00DAD

Ah, yes, well if ANDRE said it then it must be true!

47

Islam More Lenient on Apostates than the WTBTS!

by 00DAD in

islam more lenient on apostates than the wtbts!.

this morning i came across this thought provoking comment in a cnn news article:.

harris zafar, national spokesperson of the ahmadiyya muslim community usa, does not mince words on the subject, stating in a huffington post opinion piece that "islam prescribes absolutely no punishment for apostasy.".

00DAD

Justitia Themis, thanks for responding and adding your comments. Of course you're right that there is a wide-range beliefs among Muslims. The article clearly discusses the disagreement among muslims over the issue of how to treat apostates.

However my post was specifically in response to Mr. Zafar's comments, which is of course HIS particular take on the thing. The fact that there is diversity in belief among muslims (or many other belief systems for that matter) is both obvious and ironic. Why, because no diversity is allowed among JWs. They are completely intolerant on the subject. There cannot even be a discussion about having the discussion!

Any dissension or even a doubt expressed can result in an individual being branded as a heretic and an apostate with the resulting punishment. That being said, I agree with you that it "it is inaccurate to ever say, 'Islam teaches this, or Muslims believe this.'" However, I must point out that your quarrel is not with me, but should be with any of the talking-heads quoted in the article that expressed their viewpoints as fact. Again, I merely focused on the one quote by Mr. Zafar as one which stands in stark contrast to the practices of the WTBTS. This is after all the Jehovah's Witness Network blog!

Finally, regarding the "True Believer" reference, it seems you missed my point of that reference. Whenever I hear people use the term "True Believer" it is ALWAYS in reference to extremists of whatever is the particular group being discussed. I find the term is used a lot in the popular media in this sense, whether it is of a religious or political zealot. Check out this definition from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:

a person who has been thoroughly convinced of something.
a fanatic, esp. a religious or political one.

I can't be absolutely sure, but the expression seems to come from the 1951 social psychology book by Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements, which discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism.

In reference to that, you might find these links interesting:

Cheers,

Daniel

21

After reading this - is it possible to 'doubt' that Jw's would hide Pedophiles?

by AK - Jeff in

jw
friends

.

00DAD

Hmmm, past murders vs. current smoking of marijuana?

Hmmm, well since the murders were before "baptism" they obviously don't count, but now that our man is a dear "dedicated brother" and "attending the meetings" then we simply can't have him going around with a ganja stick in him mouth. That will never do, no never! What will people think?