Posts by Island Man

20

If you love conspiracy theories...

by Gregor in

jw
friends

we are in the middle of a beauty.. this ebola thing is sooo being manipulated by the obola administration.

elections coming up in less than 3 weeks.... .

.

Island Man

I think Fear-bola has the capacity to do more harm in the US than Ebola.

I think the greatest threat re Ebola is if a group like ISIS decides to use it as a weapon in a bio attack, contaminating food or water or spraying it from above.

21

Has Anything Changed In JW Understanding Since The Annual Meeting?

by minimus in

i haven't been here much within the last week.

is there anything new in watchtower world?.

.

Gog of Magog no longer refers to satan but a coalition of nations that will attack JWs in the future. The reasoning behind this change is that the bible speaks of Gog being buried but it makes no sense to speak of satan - a spirit creature - being buried. So Gog must refer to human enemies.

It amazes me that it took them so long to see something so obvious. This is clearly not about the light getting brighter. This is about the JWs being mostly blind and only once in a while they get a lucky glimpse of reason through their blindness.

74

GB Doesnt Believe in 1914 Anymore My reasoning

by thedepressedsoul in

i have heard a lot of talk over the last year or so if the gb will eventually ditch 1914 and some have even made the claim that most, if not all of the gb do not believe in 1914. ive given this some thought and in the past i wasnt sure.

this annual meeting puts 100%, without a doubt in my mind that the gb do not believe in 1914. id even go as far to say that they talked about that date and have a game plan in mind.. here is why i feel this way:.

there were a lot of changes with the parables at this annual meeting.

Island Man

" Also since Satan was cast down to earth in 1934, what did he do that it is evident that it happened? Nothing... The connection between 1914 and WWI along with the release of Rutherfraud from prison in 1919 are way too precious to let go."

They could spin with 1934. They can say that upon being cast out from heaven angry Satan immediately went to work fomenting the conditions what resulted in the outbreak of the first truly global war just 5 years later in 1939 - WWII (WWI was more of a Eropean war than a truly global conflict). Then they can move the appointement of the FDS from 1919 to 1939. They can say that when Jesus inspected religions in 1939 he found that only JWs were refusing to go to war while also teaching sound doctrine but the rest of christendom was teaching lies and going to war in WWII. And I'm sure Watchtower can pull some inocuous events occuring in the organization in those years to cite as proof of both dates. Watchtower can do it if they really want to.

50

"Ebola is not spread through the air" -- CDC. Yeah, right!

by FatFreek 2005 in

somehow, i don't have a warm fuzzy feeling when i keep hearing from the center of disease control, "ebola is not spread through the air ...".

ever sneezed?

the famous myth busters had a revealing show on the power of the sneeze anecdotally it has a velocity of some 35 miles per hour and travels a distance of some 30 feet.. ever traveled in the close confines of an air liner?

Island Man

Ebola is not airborne. Ebola is spread by contact with infected bodily fluids. Think about it people: If Ebola was airborne, do you think there would just be 8000 cases in West Africa? There would have been millions of people infected by now! If Ebola was airborne it would be spreading as fast as the flu. This is clearly not happening. Only persons who come in direct contact with infected individuals are getting it.

Why are health workers wearing protective gear getting it? Ironically, many healthcare workers are probably getting it because they're wearing protective gear! You see, the protective gear gives such workers a sense of security and so they're not too concerned about the patient's bodily fluids getting on them (and caring for Ebola patients is a messy job involving exposure to much bodily fluids as patients need to be cleaned from having diarroeah, vomiting, bleeding, etc) So if the protective gear is not full proof, that sense of security that the caregiver has, is actually a false sense of security and the caregiver is actually over-exposing himself without even realizing it.

Even if the protective gear adequately shields the caregiver, the weakest link in terms of protection is actually the removal of the fluid-soiled gear. It can be very tricky to remove gear tainted with bodily fluids without getting some of that fluid on you. For this reason I think hazmat suits should be used because they leave no part of the body exposed and can be completely showered over with disinfectant to make the suit germ free before removing it.

" for that professional ( two of them) to contract the disease says a lot about the degree of contagiousness of that virus."

No. It says a lot about the poor nature of the protective gear they're using. These workers aren't using hazmat suits but makshift gear that leaves some parts exposed and which presents the risk of contamination when they're being removed - regardless of how careful you try to be!

14

Trained to Exploit Emotionally Vulnerable People?

by dontplaceliterature in

i don't post here much anymore, but i am working on a project with a few academics from my area who are in the psychology field.

we are looking for printed evidence in their literature that jehovah's witnesses train their publishers/pioneers to target people who are suceptible to being recruited - i.e.

people who have experienced a loss, or who are emotionally vulnerable.

Island Man

Jehovah's Witnesses do exploit the emotionally vulnerable. The thing is, I don't think most JWs are thinking enough to realize that their actions amount to such.

There are statements in Watchtower literature to the effect that people who have shown little or no interest in the JW message in the past, may have a change of circumstance such as the death of a loved one, loss of employment, etc, that could make them more inclined to listen to the message the next time around. Such statements demonstrate Watchtower's awareness that people's 'vulnerability' to their message is dependent on their circumstances in their life.

Often, a JW will attempt to convince a 'weak' or 'inactive' JW to return to the fold by telling the 'inactive' JW that its the only way to see their deceased loved one in the future. JWs definitely do prey on the emotionally vulnerable. Whether they realize that that's what they're doing is another issue.

96

This weeks #2 & #3 talk on homosexuality

by granada35 in

jw
friends

after a one year sucessful fade and no longer associated with any congreation, i was visiting my sister this week (who goes to the meeting to please her husband for now; i am slowly planting seeds though) and they decided to year this weeks midweek meeting via the telephone.

since i was a guest in her house, i sat with them in the living room to hear the meeting.

to my surprise (especially growing up as a gay jw with still alot of anger in my heart over how i was treated), the talks 2 and 3 where on, of course, homosexualiy.

Island Man

I agree that the JWs' position re homosexuality is atrocious. But I think we need to tackle the real deeper issue here that we may be ignoring.

The problem of JW homophobia does not stem from the JWs themselves - it stems from the bible. JWs are bible believers and the bible very clearly condemns homosexuality. What are bible-believing JWs to do? Are they supposed to pick and choose which scriptures to follow and which scriptures to ignore - like 'Christendom' does? How can they, as bible believers, turn a blind eye to texts that explicitly condemn homosexuality? As long as they see the bible as the Word of God and pride themselves on living by it fully, unlike the hypocritical churches of 'Christendom', they have no choice but to openly condemn homosexuality - regardless of they feel about it privately (and JWs who deep down feel that it is wrong to be homophobic, will chock up such feelings to their imperfect nature and tell themselves that they cant trust their imperfect personal feelings on the matter). How do you tell a bible-believing JW that it is wrong to condemn homosexuality. You might as well tell him that the bible is not the Word of God . . . and good luck trying to get him to accept that.

96

This weeks #2 & #3 talk on homosexuality

by granada35 in

jw
friends

after a one year sucessful fade and no longer associated with any congreation, i was visiting my sister this week (who goes to the meeting to please her husband for now; i am slowly planting seeds though) and they decided to year this weeks midweek meeting via the telephone.

since i was a guest in her house, i sat with them in the living room to hear the meeting.

to my surprise (especially growing up as a gay jw with still alot of anger in my heart over how i was treated), the talks 2 and 3 where on, of course, homosexualiy.

Island Man

"the interlinear seems to say "soft men nor liers with males" wonder why the distinction if it both means homesexuals???"

Because "homosexual" is a modern terminology used in a broader way while in bible times the people distinguished between men who made themselves the recipient of acts of sodomy (without necessarily having homosexual lusts themselves) and men who did the actual penetrating in acts of sodomy. Perhaps, in bible times, there were male prostitutes who were not truly homosexual (not having the homosexual desire to sodomize others) but nonetheless served as paid recipients of acts of sodomy to satisy the desires of homosexual men. So because such a prostitute is not really a homosexual (although they would have been regarded as just as bad if not worse) the bible makes a distinction between them and those with the actual homosexual lusts. Because back then a 'soft man' may have been tempted to rationalize and justify himself by saying that because he's not doing any penetrating and does not have any homosexual desire, he's technically not as bad as a homosexual. 'Soft men' could also have been people who did not like being sodomized but did it anyway because they were desperately in need of money. And so they could have reasoned that they're not as bad as homosexuals who do the penetrating and have the lust. So it could be for this reason that the bible is careful to mention both so that 'soft men' don't think they're in the clear.

74

GB Doesnt Believe in 1914 Anymore My reasoning

by thedepressedsoul in

i have heard a lot of talk over the last year or so if the gb will eventually ditch 1914 and some have even made the claim that most, if not all of the gb do not believe in 1914. ive given this some thought and in the past i wasnt sure.

this annual meeting puts 100%, without a doubt in my mind that the gb do not believe in 1914. id even go as far to say that they talked about that date and have a game plan in mind.. here is why i feel this way:.

there were a lot of changes with the parables at this annual meeting.

Island Man

I think they'll eventually accept the 587 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem and shift forward from 1914 to 1934.

Why do I say so? The 607 BCE start date is the most falsifiable aspect of the 1914 teaching since there's mountains of archaeological evidence pionting to 587 BCE. Everything else about the teaching is based on questionable, eisegetical interpretation of scripture, but cannot be definitively disproven (in the same way one cannot definitively disprove that there's an invisible pink elephant flying around a room).

1934 is actually better because, unlike October 1914, it leaves some time between Satan's being cast out and the start of WWII, which was far more destructive and worldwide in scope than WWI. The 1934 date will also buy them more time for their overlapping generation (but they would have to change to it soon, perhaps within the next 5 years). Also, changing it this way allows them to save some face because they can say that the biblically based method of determining the end of the gentile times still stands as being true - only Russel (who by the way is not a member of the Faithful and Discreet Slave) got the start date wrong.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

Island Man

I think JWs who say this are taking the doctors and surgeons statements out of context.

These doctors and surgeons were speaking of situations where there are effective alternatives to blood. Blood transfusions do carry risks and so given a choice between a blood transfusion and a less risky alternative it makes sense to go with the alternative.

But these same doctors and surgeons would not fanatically refuse a blood transfusion in a life or death situation where there are no other alternatives.

JWs make fools of themselves when they speak of the risks associated with transfusions in life and death situations where there are no alternatives. Which patient in his right mind, facing almost certain imminent death, is going to refuse a life saving blood transfusion on the grounds that blood transfusions have some risks?

In life threatening situations requiring blood, the risk of dying without blood far outweighs the risks associated with blood transfusions. JWs make fools of themselves by denying this fact or being seemingly oblivious to it.

16

Chlostridium difficile infectiion...

by titch in

i suppose that this question falls under the topic of "personal experiences.

" so, i have a question for the members of the site: has anyone had any experience with a malady called "chlostridium dificille infection"?

either yourself personally, or a relative or a friend?

Island Man

Faecal transplant? Is that what it sounds like?