Vic Vomidog

JW Insider said:
Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. Of course, a large fraction of JWs are content to have an authority tell them what to think, and even where to put their feet on each step.
Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco.
The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat.
The point I'm making is not so much about disfellowshipping per se, but the attitude engendered in most JWs by the policy of disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', i.e., expressing disagreement with Watchtower tradition or policy.
Most JWs are well aware that if they found themselves before a judicial committee for expressing doubt about some JW teaching, the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove. This creates fear in the JWs who think this through.
I think the number of people who would even want to come back is small, so great is the resentment caused by the authoritarian policies.
You're right in principle, but not, I think, in practice. If there were less of a violent reaction by Watchtower officials against disagreement, there would be less pushback by those who are punished for disagreeing. It simply wouldn't be worth their time.
About 20 years ago I managed to get an audience with a Watchtower official about such things. He was interested in hearing the viewpoint of an outspoken online critic. I told him that if the Society cleaned up its act on three issues, most opposition would dry up: blood, child molestation and disfellowshipping. He agreed.
Of necessity, sure.
Of course, because for decades the Society has condemned deviations as rebellion against God. The JW community could be rehabilitated fairly easily.
I think the fact that most JWs DO think of their leaders as governors of their faith belies all that.
That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong.
Much like slowly boiling a frog in a big pot keeps him comfortable.
Such "appreciation" ignores the fact that most of the time, JW leaders must be dragged kicking and screaming away from their traditional teachings. The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess.
If these men were truly humble, they would not claim that their own words are equal to God's.
Considered by who?
Sure, if it involved an extremely clear violation of biblical norms, such as sleeping with one's stepmother. But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own. But a century of authoritarian indoctrination has severely damaged the conscience and thinking ability of far too many JWs. "What does the Society say?" rather than "What does the Bible say?" is the operational phrase for most elders. That's understandable since the Governing Body has put itself in the place of God in the minds of JWs. Watchtower policy almost always trumps an individual JW's understanding of the Bible.

Dunning-Kruger is at work bigtime in this one.

There are many lies told about me here. These are horrible people. They want to discredit me because they KNOW that I have information that will put their Mommy Watchtower right out of business.
I really thought that you would not be deceived. You are a very smart man who can see through a smokescreen.
At reddit.com I find love and support. I was hoping I could find the same here. Maybe it will still happen. Liars will not win forever.

Vic Vomidog said:
I'm bored with stringing you along, TrueTomHarley, so this is the end.

JW Insider said:
     
Of course. One such was in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower, which considered the question, "Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?" The article never clearly defines "apostasy", but weasels around by saying that a true Christian must accept "the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses." But this is another instance of the Society talking out of both sides of its mouth, because the Insight book, under "Apostasy", clearly states that apostasy "constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth." Combining the two concepts results in something like this: "Since the Governing Body speaks for God, rejecting its teachings is rebellion against God." And we know that this idea has been clearly enunciated or implied hundreds of times in JW literature.
Of course, in the most general sense, "apostasy" means "leaving a previous loyalty", but that is far too broad a definition because it would mean that a loyal employee who quits his job is an apostate, which is an absurd use of the word. So the Society's many rantings against "apostates" essentially equate disagreement with its teachings with rebellion against God. How convenient!
Much more accurate words to describe dissent from Watchtower teaching are "heterodoxy" and "heresy". But heresy has dire associations, such as "Inquisition" and so forth, so the Society will not use it.
Catholic scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell, writing in Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (Twayne Publishers, 1992), gave an excellent account of these and related words and how they have been used in the Catholic world (pp. 2-3):
<< Ideas acceptable to the bishops and to approved theologians were defined as orthodox (correct teaching) and catholic (universally held)... Dissenting ideas were considered heterodox (divergent). Heterodox ideas, when defined and condemned by the bishops, were deemed heretical. A heretic was a dissenter formally condemned by an accepted ecclesiastical authority... The term heretic is distinguished from infidel, one who is not Christian at all; apostate, one who abandons Christianity; and schismatic, one who has true doctrine but does not submit to ecclesiastical order. >>
Most of these concepts are found in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower.
Yes, as I said above.
That's right, but no administrators in their right minds would call such an expelled person an apostate.
And of course, expelling for clearly stated organizational reasons has nothing to do with equating those reasons with rebellion against God. It is this unchristian attitude, among other things, that defines Jehovah's Witnesses as a destructive cult.

Many, many lies have been told about me here! Maybe you have shared in this wicked plot. JWs are trying to silence me! They are afraid of what I know! Soon they will see that they are right to be afraid of me.

JW Insider said:
     
The fact that virtually no JW critics give credence to that nonsense makes everything else moot.
There are two senses of "inspired": 'God-breathed' and the metaphorical sense, as in "that painting inspires me". The two should not be confused, although Watchtower writers often dishonestly take advantage of the ambiguity of the two meanings.
The Society likes to use "direction" rather than "inspiration" because it allows them -- they think -- some wiggle room when their "spirit-directed" policies and teachings go wrong. But in the minds of average JWs, there is no difference, because the result is the same: "Obey the Governing Body's commands as you would God's."
The Society has long been talking out of both sides of its collective mouth on this.
Completely missing the point. No surprise.
What his blog post clumsily and inaccurately alluded to was, rather, the argument that if the Governing Body demands obedience as if to God himself, and disfellowships for 'apostasy' -- rebelling against God -- any who willingly disobey or dispute the GB, then they are implicitly claiming inspiration. Why? Because if they acted in accord with the fact that they themselves are well aware of -- that they are in no sense inspired -- they would have to stop pretending that their words are God's words, and stop disfellowshipping people for apostasy.
Of course, most everyone understands that, after all this time and irreparable damage to families by these disgusting teachings, if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically. And of course, a very large number of JWs would sue the Watchtower Society for various abuses, probably forcing it out of business.

TrueTomHarley said:
Nope. You're simply too stupid to see that where the material has "... AlanF said:" it's inside a quotation of Anna. Thus my quotations of Anna's comments to me include my preceding comments to her. That's largely because this board's software is too limited to allow proper quotations within quotations without going to unreasonable lengths.
You're simply too dumb for words. If striving for stupidity were a baseball game, you've knocked the ball out of the park.

TrueTomHarley said:
     
Such an infantile rejoinder! You continue confirming that you're a real dummie. But since you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect you don't know it.
LOL! This ridiculous bit of special pleading starts off, in its very first sentence, with this bit of nonsense:
<< It is revealing to me that those who taunt JWs endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. >>
It only gets worse from this simple-minded straw man.
The fact is that no critics of the JWs expect that there ought to be inspired people at the helm. Quite the contrary. Many critics, like Raymond Franz, clearly argued that no one can be inspired today, and that is one reason JW leaders should not make that claim, or make the claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit as Jehovah's representatives.
It is JW leaders themselves who claim or have claimed direct inspiration, or 'guidance' that is indistinguishable from plenary inspiration. J. F. Rutherford claimed that angels magically 'downloaded' information into his head. And on and on.
The fact that JW leaders disfellowship for 'apostasy' anyone who contradicts their teaching or denies that they are God's representatives proves that they really do claim inspiration.
The rest of your 'argumentation' is too childish to comment on.

Anna said:
     
So you don't think that God appoints any GB members. Good for you! If God did not appoint Greenlees, then he and the rest of them were appointed by fallible men -- a position considered apostate by the Governing Body and its minions.
 
But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man.
It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.
     
Then God had nothing to do with Greenlees' appointment to the GB or anything else. By extension, neither does he have anything to do with appointing any other JW elders -- contrary to the Society's claims.
     
Not as such, but they would certainly have been inclined to ignore Greenlees' behavior if they knew about it. And things like obvious homosexuality are not things easily ignored.
And of course, according to Watchtower doctrine, anyone not fully qualified to be a proper elder would not be appointed, because holy spirit would see to it.
     
Of course. And to appropriate lawyers.
     
Ok, here's a good one.
Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8:
<< 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >>
The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them.
In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, "What do you think that passage means?" He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction.
In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian.
Obviously there is no point in his latter years where he had "been made clean".
     
Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.
Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.
 
Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.
     
I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.
But the Society makes no claims about such things.
What do you think JW leaders mean when they say that Jehovah has appointed them as his anointed representatives? Merely that their predecessors read the Bible and decided to appoint them? I could appoint myself by that process, but would it be a valid appointment? Of course not, and by the same token JW leaders appointing other JW leaders is NOT in any sense "appointment by holy spirit".

Vic Vomidog said:
     
He/she seems to be in-between. I really can't tell, and these days it's impolite to ask. You'll have to decide for yourself.
Well, I think that an in-between would be pretty thick skinned.
It's never too late to fix all that.

Arauna said:
    
Ah, so God's spirit-directed organization should be judged by such 'worldly' standards. Such self-serving hypocrisy!
     
Nope. That moron first wrongly criticized my grammar and twice refused to be corrected. Or can't you read? Or is your age impeding your understanding?
I've said that several times in this thread. Did you not comprehend? Or do you think you're making a point?
Wrong. I expect that others will not be gross hypocrites, and will not stupidly try to remove a non-existent splinter from my eye when they have a rafter in theirs.
Sure, and I envy them for that. But they shouldn't challenge a competent native English speaker unless they have all their ducks in a row.
     
Arauna said:
     
LOL! You, who gets most of her knowledge of the world via Watchtower publications, have the gall to say that!
The Watchtower Society has been making claims like that since its beginning. Not one claim has come true. It taught that 1914 would bring "the end". It taught that 1918, 1920 and 1925 would bring Armageddon. It taught that Armageddon would come shortly after 1942. Then 1975 was really going to be "IT". Then 2000. After that, virtually every year after 2000.
No, Arauna, just like so many now-dead JWs, just before you die you're going to realize how badly your leaders have hoodwinked you.
Arauna said:
     
As I predicted, no reasonable answer here.
You have no actual reason that "nature red in tooth and claw" has existed for half a billion years. You believe that God created all life, so he must be the author of such a thing.
How could God not be the source of a "nature red in tooth and claw"?
My argument comes not from Dawkins but from a careful consideration of the Bible and scientific facts.
Do you have any actual arguments?
Arauna said:
     
No, it comes from thinking about the situation. This is not rocket science.
  
Except that I've demonstrated that you and most of your fellow JWs really do refuse to see. The few that do see prove my point.
     
But your posts indicate that you believe the Governing Body can do no wrong because you refuse to acknowledge any of their wrongdoing. You obviously view them as infallible, and you view them as they want to be viewed -- as God's anointed spokemen.
Prove me wrong if you disagree.
Not a hater, but a realistic viewer. You seem to have absorbed the post-modernist view that criticism is hatred.
Nonsense. You cannot cite examples.

Many, many lies have been told about me here! Maybe you have shared in this wicked plot. JWs are trying to silence me! They are afraid of what I know! Soon they will see that they are right to be afraid of me.

You will soon see me drop a bombshell, hopefully. Then you will see that my bite is worse than my back.
“Then you will know, I only am @Vic Vomidog! Then you will know that I am just and true” AHA HA HA HA HA!! I shall not have lurked in vain!!!

Welcome, @AlanF! I am sorry that I did not notice here before. A little bird had to rattle my cage.
The JWs here (or anywhere) are all liars and disgusting apologists. It is good that you are expose the lies of Mommy. Only a reminder as regards TTH:
Yes. But you are not very thorough, I have found. No matter how many of his disgusting, vile, reprehensible, flatulent, odious, debased, toe-sucking qualities of his you highlight, there will always be a few that you forget to mention. Please consult me during those times for assistance. 
Yes again. It stands for World Trade Federation. If these JWs had more education—they are the stupidest creatures on two feet—they would know that.

Everything about Jehovah’s Witnesses is “privilege this” and “privilege that.” None of it is true. I am here to tell you that it is all slave labor, and furthermore

What! Are you going senile now, you disgusting old fool? At least if you do, the damage will be slight. Nobody will be able to tell the difference!
“Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.” 2 John 9
Why don’t you try READING that book that you beat everyone over the head with? I think John Butler has you pegged pretty well, you hypocrite!

What! Are you going senile now, you disgusting old fool? At least if you do, the damage will be slight. Nobody will be able to tell the difference!
“Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.” 2 John 9
Why don’t you try READING that book that you beat everyone over the head with? I think John Butler has you pegged pretty well, you hypocrite!

Any mention of pillows is a sore subject with me. Many of my friends had to go naked for the sake of these.
 
Whenever the office staff thought a letter was from a birdbrain they handed it to me. I never got to do anything else. That’s why I left.

Any mention of pillows is a sore subject with me. Many of my friends had to go naked for the sake of these.
 
Whenever the office staff thought a letter was from a birdbrain they handed it to me. I never got to do anything else. That’s why I left.

Any mention of pillows is a sore subject with me. Many of my friends had to go naked for the sake of these.
 
Whenever the office staff thought a letter was from a birdbrain they handed it to me. I never got to do anything else. That’s why I left.

If you could keep your aviarphobic hatred to yourself I would appreciate it. You are nearly as bad as that ridiculous TTH.

He is mad. Mad, I say. I keep trying to tell you, Srecko.
He keeps speaking in the third person, the pompous ass, as though he were above it all.

Hehehehe

Never pay attention to coincidences like this. They mean nothing. hehehehe
Just remember: Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult!
And don’t listen to that liar @TrueTomHarley when he pretends to agree, but adds:
C. courage
U. unity 
L. love
T. truth
 
Arrrggghhhh! I hate him!