Posts by Island Man

20

The Beast-Tower #11: God's View of Trolling

by sd-7 in

jw
friends

"did god really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?

" with those words, satan the devil became the first troll.

(gen. 3:1) what is trolling?

Island Man

Were you in the Watchtower writing dept. sd-7?

7

"Please Help My Brother"

by Londo111 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbrojmfbweu.

i've been enjoying this series quite a bit.

i believe this a non-jw from jamaica whose brother is studying and working toward baptism.. the playlist is here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/ucmfy5skgfysq36ug1ismnsg/videos.

One of the best new anti-JW channels on YouTube. I think the fact that he never was a JW allows him to see things from a perspective that many ex-JWs can't. Growing up in the JW faith, there are some ills we tend to take for granted as being normal and acceptable and could easily miss as being an ill. But a non JW can spot those ills much easier.

10

August 2014 Kingdom Ministry (KM - 08/2014 PDF)

by WatchTower87 in

our kingdom ministry august 2014 - special number - :-p. .

instruction: press the 'skip ad' button top right, you should then see the download screen more easily.

no virus ;-).

Island Man

"Guess you don't get to do demos if you don't have an Ipad.

Doc"

I strongly believe that Watchtower has a product placement ad contract with a tablet manufacturer. Why else would they be doing so much to inadvertently encourage JWs to get tablets - and this just a few years after assembly parts warning about the dangers of being caught up with new technology?

15

Sorry posters JWs leaders will not "change" 1914 or 144,000 "literal to figurative "doctrine

by booker-t in

jw
friends

i actually called bethel a few weeks ago and i was shocked that i actually got thru to the writing dept.

i was abit nervous but i asked the jw writer if there was going to be a change in doctrine.

i thought he was going to immediately hang up on me thinking "apostate caller" but he was actually nice and we talked for a while.

Island Man

booker-t, what that brother in the writing dept told you, means nothing. I mean, if changes in 1914 and 144,000 teachings really are imminent, do you actually think that the brother in the writing dept woud tell you so and pre-empt the Governing Body's official revelation of it at an annual meeting or some other official means? Do you seriously think you can take that brother's word for it? Are you still indoctrinated? This is the most important statement that the brother made:

" if they do get changed the GB will let everyone know at the same time."

The brother could have simply used theocratic warfare on you. Think: From the brother's standpoint, do you have a right to know of future doctrinal changes before the GB announces it? No. So why would the brother confirm any changes? Even if the brother heard unofficial whispers of future changes he's not going to talk, because he can just reason to himself that techinically speaking it's just rumors and he hasn't heard anything official from the GB.

I'm not saying the changes will take place. I'm only saying that you shouldn't gullibly accept as truth, what a Watchtower rep tells you - especially when that Watchtower rep has ample reason to withhold such information from you. Think about it.

144

Escaping Indoctrination - Faith Isn't a Virtue.

by cofty in

the unknown writer of the gospel of john put the following words in jesus' mouth, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.".

persuading countless generations that it is a virtue to believe incredible things on insufficient evidence, is one of religion's cleverest tricks.. the more incredible the claim; the more flimsy the evidence; the stronger the belief; the greater the virtue.. this is the exact opposite of how we operate in every other aspect of our lives.. rational people must demand objective evidence for everything they are asked to believe.

"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".. leaving the dogmatic claims of the watchtower is only a first step.

Island Man

Faith is not a virtue. Faith is a vulnerability that leaves one open to being conned. Faith is a potent weapon used by religous charlatans to guilt others into believing them. Religion invented the concept of faith to counter its obvious weakness of lack of evidence.

56

Misquote in the Creation Book

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

my dad came into the jw's because someone studied the "creation" book with him.

it pains me deeply that he sent me an e-mail recently saying that to keep the peace with my mom, he will stop communicating with me as much as possible.

i should communicate with him only if i have an emergency.. it upsets me to no end, but i cannot do anything or much about it.

Island Man

What I find even more apalling than the quote being taken out of context is utter lack of intelligence behind the argument it is being used to advance. If divided opinions among evolutionists is to be regarded as refuting the validity of evolution, then what about the far more divided opinions among christians with the multiplicity of sects and denominations? Wouldn't that likewise refute the validity of christianity? Blind, hypocritical, unthinking drone of a Watchtower writer!

23

Do you think the age has passed when there can be no new religions?

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

i think we are already living in the age where there can be no new religions.

we have access to information like never before and anyone claiming revelations of something new and starting a whole new religion can easily be discredited.. christianity and islam may continue to subdivide but i think we've pretty much seen the end of anything new in terms of a new belief system.. .

what are your thoughts on this?.

Island Man

I think it's possible to see new non-theistic religions developing. Religion as a concept will slowly evolve to the point that it moves away from the supernatural. Instead of being devoted to superstitious beliefs and supernatural beings, the religion of tommorrow will be devoted to particular philosophical and moral world views. We already have the makings of this in movements like secular humanism.

Humans are social creatures and for societies to funtion healthily, certian implicit laws have to obeyed. In turn, the obedience to law requires motivation. Religion along with the legislative and judicial arm of the state, have traditionally served as the prime sources of this motivation to obey moral laws that maintain a healthy, orderly society. Fear of invisible god(s) watching over you motivates many people to do the right thing even when they can get away with doing wrong without the police knowing, or which aren't criminalized by state law.

With fear-based theistic religion on the decline, something new has to evolve to fill its role. Perhaps Morality will develop as a fundamental science that is taught from kindergarten to university alongside English and Math. Then, maybe governments will create a new, non-criminal law system to tackle certain vices and unethical conduct which aren't strictly illegal or criminal but proven nonetheless to be detrimental or disadvantagous to society over time (e.g. sexual infidelity = non-consensual promiscuity, price gouging, non-petty lies, public drunkenness, etc)

This can be something like a financial credit rating but applied to a person's morality. Maybe everyone is issued a default maximum morality rating at birth then when you reach a predetermined age of responsibility your morality rating gets lowered everytime you commit an infraction against the non-criminal moral code. Different infractions will carry different point penalities. Your rating can also be increased/repaired by doing altruistic deeds, selfless acts of bravery in the face of danger, community service, etc. Your morality rating serves as a metric that can be used by universities, companies, clubs and other institutions when deciding if to accept your application.

This could actually be a very good system for undoing some of the undue power of money to infuence others' appraisal of a person. Showing undue favortism to the wealthy can be an infraction that carries a stiff penalty. It may not completely eliminate undue favor to the wealthy at the expense of others but it will go a long way to greatly reducing it. Applicants will tend to be evaluated on their ability and their morality rather than on how wealthy they or their family is.

33

A glaring example of how Watchtower's insertion of "Jehovah" corrupts the NT

by Island Man in

"the rnwt replaces "kyrios" (lord) with "jehovah" in translating romans 14:8 as follows:.

"for if we live, we live to jehovah,*+ and if we die, we die to jehovah.

* so both if we live and if we die, we belong to jehovah.".

Island Man

Here is something else I've noticed about that passage in Romans 14. Verse 6 says:

The one who observes the day observes it to Jehovah. * Also, the one who eats, eats to Jehovah, * for he gives thanks to God; + and the one who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, * and yet gives thanks to God.

Do you notice something strange and unnatural about the wording? Don't these phrases seem unnatural: "The one who eats to Jehovah . . . gives thanks to God"? "The one who . . . does not eat to Jehovah, and yet gives thanks to God"?

If the kyrios in verse 6 is Jehovah then that means the writer is clumisily and unecessarily using two different proper nouns to refer to the same person, within the same sentence! If the kyrios really is Jehovah, then instead of the unwiedlly phrases I quoted above, it would seem more natural for the writer to have written verse 6 as follows:

The one who observes the day observes it to Jehovah. * Also, the one who eats, eats to Jehovah, * for he thanks him; + and the one who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, * and yet he thanks him.

If kyrios truly refers to Jehovah then having said kyrios the writer does not need to keep using another proper noun - God - to refer to the same person. It would be more natural for him to simplify his expression using the pronoun him. What kind of person speaks about someone in a paragraph referring to them multiple times by different proper nouns and omitting to use pronouns? People don't speak like that. That's not natural speech.

So the fact that Romans 14:6 is worded in this way with the use of two different proper nouns, suggests that the author had two persons in mind. Logically, then, the kyrios in verse 6 seems to actually be a referrence to christ.

The expression 'eating to the Lord' may be another way of saying 'eating in the name of the Lord'. The one who eats offers thanks to God for the food in Jesus' name. Thus by eating to the Lord (or in the name of the Lord) he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat does not eat to the Lord (or in Jesus name) and yet he still gives thanks to God in prayer [for other things.]

12

I love the fact that the GB is becoming more visible. Why? Think micro expressions.

by Island Man in

micro expressions are involuntary facial expressions lasting for half a second or less.

these facial expressions mirror a person's true emotions and so provide a window into a person's feelings in response to a statement or question.

particular facial expressions correspond to particular emotions and the mappings are universal across cultures.

Island Man

Micro expressions are involuntary facial expressions lasting for half a second or less. These facial expressions mirror a person's true emotions and so provide a window into a person's feelings in response to a statement or question. Particular facial expressions correspond to particular emotions and the mappings are universal across cultures. For example, when someone raises one side of his upper lip, this expression denotes a feeling of contempt by the expresser toward someone or something that he feels he is superior to, in some way.

Learning micro expressions and body language can serve as a very useful tool in analyzing footage of GB members to find out how they really feel about what they're saying or questions posed to them. For those still in, micro expressions given by C.O.s and elders who are on stage giving talks; or even by elders meeting with you on a shepherding visit can help you to determine what an elder really thinks of a question posed to him and if he's lying about a statement being made. It can help you identify others who may be secretly awake. For example, just ask a JW a GB-praising question or some other question that only a sleeping JW would welcome but which will make an awake JW feel contempt, and see what micro expression the JW gives.

Being able to read micro expressions can also be very useful in other areas of life such as in relationships, negotiations, on the job, job interviews, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWry8xRTwpo

28

"The end will come when you least expect it"

by stuckinarut2 in

ok, so didnt jesus supposedly say "the end will come when you least expect it"?

(or words to that effect...).

so, with so many witnesses running around in an excited way talking about "100 years since the kingdom...etc" and "it may be our last chance to pioneer etc"..."may be the last international conventions".....doesnt this mean then that the end can not come now??!!.

Island Man

According to Jesus his followers don't know when the end would come. For this reason he tells them to keep on the watch. It is inconceivable that the end will come at a time when every single christian does not think it will. Given the number of christians there's always going to be one thinking about the end at any given moment, and the end will come in one of those moments.