1. Comment #175740 by JamesDB on May 6, 2008 at 12:27 am

There's nothing like someone asking you to sign a paper that pretty much says you would rather die and leave you kids motherless than live to shake your faith away. Why is it always the extreme examples that turn people.
I would say thats one of the bigger problems with people not wanting to leave christianity, they don't force you to risk your life as much.

Other Comments by JamesDB

2. Comment #175756 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

Comment #175753 by sphardy

http://exjw-reunited.co.uk/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=77

Ye gods and little fishes, one of the posters is from Horsforth in Leeds, not too far away from where I was brought up.

A little too close for comfort.

Other Comments by epeeist

3. Comment #175759 by AllanW on May 6, 2008 at 1:55 am

Congratulations to this lady and her fellow helpers both for getting out of this sect and for setting-up this facility.

If people are unsure what they can concretely do to help in the battle for rationality and reason then spend some time helping at one of these groups or just support them with money. The repayment is immense but insubstantial :)

Other Comments by AllanW

4. Comment #175767 by Logicel on May 6, 2008 at 2:16 am

I have only admiration for this woman.

More and more outlets for easing the transition from religion to non-theism will crop up. Though the Web will play a large part in this process, I often muse about sometime in the future, when we are much less dysfunctional as a society than we are now, and when we actually have transformed the often beautiful places now used for silly religious worship for such hubs where people can recover from the damage done by their religious brainwashing, mis-information, and addiction.

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #175771 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 2:25 am

Good for her. It's good to see this woman turning what has happened to her into a positive by being able to help others going through the same thing.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

6. Comment #175791 by artqvo on May 6, 2008 at 3:30 am

I'm an ex-JW, I was born into it. I left when I was around 25. Now I'm 30.

I had doubts about JW validity since I was 17 maybe even earlier, these doubts increased geometrically until I started to investigate about eveything (science, philosophy, bible archeology, JW history, and also the forbidden books written by ex-JWs etc, yes, and some of Richard Dawkins' books) when I was 24.

I gradually changed my beliefs, from JW to just Christian to just Atheist in that year. The concept of God now seems to me absurd although I can understand why people "need" it.

"Sects" for me are just social groups with a different culture from the mainstream. All typical social behaviours, in a general sense, are present both in "sects" and in society en general.

I think that this distinction it's important, especially for those that treasure their personal freedom, because you can find damaging groups everywhere - even bigger ones, like religions and whole nations - in politics, business, science, etc.

Internet for me was a very important source of information, and support. I'm lucky because I have two "worldly" atheist intelligent friends since childhood that helped me to reintegrate myself into mainstream society.

Other Comments by artqvo

7. Comment #175800 by rod-the-farmer on May 6, 2008 at 4:14 am

As a Jehovah's Witness she was subject to the whim of the church elders, and they made their feelings about a blood transfusion quite clear. As she was wheeled into the operating theatre, one of them pushed a form under her nose and said "sign here".

This sounds like the church elders followed this woman almost into the operating room, trying to get her to sign a document refusing a transfusion. Wow. Talk about mind control. Why would they not have these forms at their church, so everyone could sign it when in clear possession of their faculties ? Sort of like organ donor check boxes on your drivers license. But no, they wait until you are vulnerable and under stress, then try to get your signature. Hah. Maybe people who were asked in the clear light of day would think about it, and refuse to sign. Maybe, even, in front of others. Gad. A fracture in the fabric of the JW lifestyle. "Oh, this could lead to our flock thinking !"

My stomach turns.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

8. Comment #175808 by ghost of numf-el on May 6, 2008 at 5:07 am

rod the farmer - "Why would they not have these forms at their church, so everyone could sign it when in clear possession of their faculties ?"


Rod - I'm pretty sure that my mother, who has been a JW since 1972, carries the equivalent of a 'non-donor' card in her purse, the size of a credit card, which basically states that she refuses blood and organs on religious grounds.

It's her choice, and I'd like to think that I wouldn't countermand it. Fucking stupid choice though it be.
And she'd better not countermand my choice to have whatever the doctors feel is necessary.

Following someone to the operating theatre to get them to sign away their life for Jesus takes a special kind of cunt though IMHO.

Other Comments by ghost of numf-el

9. Comment #175818 by ryouga on May 6, 2008 at 5:32 am

Never seen that particular website before. There are dozens of ex-jw websites out there though. The internet has really been a boon for people leaving the borg.

"Ye gods and little fishes, one of the posters is from Horsforth in Leeds, not too far away from where I was brought up.

A little too close for comfort."

I used to live Horsforth too. I knew that posters mum when I was in the borg. Small world innit.

Other Comments by ryouga

10. Comment #175830 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 6:12 am

He had continually refused blood transfusions that would have saved his life after a simple dental procedure to remove teeth went wrong.

All the JW blood transfusion refusal is because of some Biblical passage, correct?
Because of something that was written millenium ago by some guys in the desert, people are refusing life saving blood transfusions. Once you take that first step off the reason boat you really are subject to all sorts of absurdities.
It is interesting that even the instinct for self preservation can be overcome by indoctrination.
Of course the Catholics (following the one true religion) are not prone to such nonsense. They believe in evolution and transubstantiation. For Catholics, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Only it still looks like bread and wine. Why? Not exactly sure. It could be to test the faith of the faithful.
Or it could be because the Holy Spirit did not actually come down from heaven to do his magic and what the priest holds up is still bread and wine.
I wonder which is actually true?
I suppose that depends if I have left the reason boat or not.

Sorry if this seems off topic a bit. I am musing on a comment by fides-et-ratio from another thread. He said that only the most ridiculous religious topics are dealt with. He claimed there are far more rational religious sects.

I don't think so.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

11. Comment #175847 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 6:40 am

Frankus1122: Sorry if this seems off topic a bit. I am musing on a comment by fides-et-ratio from another thread. He said that only the most ridiculous religious topics are dealt with. He claimed there are far more rational religious sects.

I don't think so.

If not more rational, then at least quieter :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

12. Comment #175862 by Cartomancer on May 6, 2008 at 6:59 am

For Catholics, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Only it still looks like bread and wine. Why? Not exactly sure. It could be to test the faith of the faithful.
Or it could be because the Holy Spirit did not actually come down from heaven to do his magic and what the priest holds up is still bread and wine.

The traditional explanation for this is an Aristotelian one, codified in its most authoritative form by Thomas Aquinas (following late eleventh and early twelfth century debates between Berengar of Tours, Hildebert of Lavardins, Peter Abelard and others). As far as we know Hildebert first came up with the word transubstantiatio to describe the process in about 1080, and this was made the official term over a century later in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council, by which time Aristotle had begun to influence Latin thinking massively. Essentially Aristotelian physics posits that all entities are made up of matter and form, and that the form is either substantial (essential or intrinsic, cannot be removed without changing the thing into another thing - breadness, wineness etc.) or accidental (can vary without changing the thing into something else - size, weight, colour, texture, taste etc.). Now, during transubstantiation the substantial form of the bread and wine (panitas, vinitas) is removed, but the accidents remain, inhering now in the substance of the body and blood of christ instead. This is why it still looks and tastes exactly as it did before.

Of course, that throws up a whole gamut of thorny philosophical and theological problems, such as what happens to the disembodied accidents of the body of christ, or how that body (which was supposed to have ascended to heaven) can be in two or more places at once (or, rather, in a place and not in a place at once, since the highest heaven was technically outside the universe and thus did not count as a place in the strict Aristotelian definition of the term), or how the quantity accident of a human body can map on to the substance of bread which would not naturally be able to support that much quantity. And it gets even more complicated when you bring in such concepts as the prima forma corporeitatis, matter-signed-by-quantity and the great chain of being.

The (heretical) alternative is consubstantiation, wherein both the body and the bread are present at once. This gained some popularity among Lutheran protestants in the early modern period, but was very much beyond tolerating for medieval catholics. It was also considered physically impossible by most theologians...

See, much more rational stuff than those silly Jehovah's Witnesses spout!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

13. Comment #175881 by steveroot on May 6, 2008 at 7:39 am

11. Comment #175830 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 6:12 am

All the JW blood transfusion refusal is because of some Biblical passage, correct?

Of _course_ it's based on the word of the living god. What did you expect- they don't like Karl Landsteiner? ;-)

If memory serves, the biblical proscription on blood is a dietary thing. The sandy authors of the scriptures used by the jojoba's witnesses to justify refusing blood could not in their wildest fantasies (and they have some pretty wild ones) have thought that blood could be exchanged between humans to save lives. Which makes it all the more retarded: they could refuse to drink/eat blood, but still receive it by transfusion. I know what Irate would say.
Ste5e

Karl Landsteiner: "Dr. A-B-O"
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1930/landsteiner-bio.html

Other Comments by steveroot

14. Comment #175882 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 7:45 am

14. Comment #175881 by steveroot -

Which makes it all the more retarded: they could refuse to drink/eat blood, but still receive it by transfusion. I know what Irate would say

To wit: Buffoons.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

15. Comment #175909 by MaxwellSmart on May 6, 2008 at 8:27 am

riandouglas:

I hate to say it, but these "quieter" sects are all the more dangerous for their lack of visibility.

The old saying comes to mind:

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

These "quiet" sects are the ones that survive generations in quiet out of the way places like rural Texas, while little girls, barely into puberty, are forced into wedlock with, and impregnated by men old enough to be their grandfather.

There is no such thing as a rational religious sect. Like Richard says, the first thing they do is require that you "suspend reason".

There's a point where we have to draw a line and say "No further!" That line has already been drawn in the wrong damn place. I just want to know how the hell to push it back to where it belongs without hurting anyone else ...

Other Comments by MaxwellSmart

16. Comment #175944 by matlot on May 6, 2008 at 9:08 am

For anyone interested. The Witness rejection of blood begins in The Old Testament and indeed uniformly describes 'eating' blood as prohibited.

However, in The New Testament, James, in Acts 15:19 and 20 states: "Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."

Note the subtle difference? The word 'abstain' appears in the New World translation (used by JWs).

An article appeared recently in The New Scientist claiming that blood transfusions may indeed be dangerous. Unfortunately, this can only serve to cement the Watchtowers, ludicrous scriptural rantings.

We need Hitchens to dismantle the Watchtower organisation as he did the Mormon faith in God is not great.

Other Comments by matlot

17. Comment #175950 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 9:17 am

Of course, that throws up a whole gamut of thorny philosophical and theological problems, such as what happens to the disembodied accidents of the body of christ

Was it on this site where the discussion of the theological ruminations of what happens when one poos out the body of Christ came up?

Holy shit! Literally.

As I am typing this I a song came on my web radio:
'dumber than god' by LITTERBUG.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

18. Comment #175962 by Bob Johnson on May 6, 2008 at 9:38 am

I hope some of the US dollars we donate to RDF make their way into British pounds to help organizations such as this group.

exjw provides a banner for other websites to use. While richarddawkins,net does have an "Atheist Resources" link it might be nice to have a "recovering" link and a page of helpful resources

Other Comments by Bob Johnson

19. Comment #175972 by Barbara on May 6, 2008 at 9:58 am

When the JW's come a knockin' I usually don't answer. I think I'll print some wallet-sized cards and keep them near the front door. The cards will have website addresses for exJW's and, of course, RD.net. When they hand me a pamphlet, I'll hand them a card.

Other Comments by Barbara

20. Comment #175987 by chezzyd on May 6, 2008 at 10:20 am

I have some personal experience of JW's as one of my best friends was one and another good friend and her husband are still in it. I am a lifelong atheist but we have all got on well for over 10 years now. I think when I met them they were perhaps 'rebelling' or simply kept it to themselves. Definitely far bigger partiers/drinkers than me.
Friend A, had started rebelling as a teen, she wanted to party and had felt very restricted by the church. I don't think she has ever left 'officially' but is now married to an atheist. She is still close to her parents who are in the church but who have accepted her choice and choose not to make a big issue about it. I am not worried about her at all. In fact her influence is being felt as her sister is now talking about leaving too (her husband slept with their 16 year old babysitter and got her pregnant - he was 'disfellowshipped' for a while but let back in - even though he was still cheating and owed money). She eventually divorced him. Life has been hard for her but easy for him, he makes little effort with his kids and has suffered no ill effects for his actions at all. She wonders how this could be if she has done what God wants and he hasn't. In fact of all the siblings, Friend A is the only one still married, the others are all divorced, having gotten married very much younger than my friend.

Friend B and her husband are lovely people too - but they seem to have gone the other way the last few years. We've always had to agree to disagree about their views on gay people 'choosing a sinful lifestyle', other than that and the birthdays/Xmas thing, not too much of an issue. However she has had 2 ectopic pregnancies, almost died because of 1 of them and now she is over 40, is unlikely to ever have children. Strangely, before her op to remove a fallopian tube she boned up on alternatives and had to insist strongly that she got those. Blood is not the only solution it appears. It was terrible having to watch her suffer from the sidelines, it must have been awful. I really believe that she saw it as some kind of punishment from God for past 'liberalisms'. She is now doing the door to door stuff and I see her much less than I used to. She has also qualified as a counsellor - I asked her how she would cope if someone came in and talked about being gay or having an abortion etc. She didn't really have a good answer for that which worried me. One evening we got into a discussion about evolution, something we'd never really done before. I was horrified when she and her husband said they believed in the literal truth of Genesis & Noah's Ark. They also said they 'knew all about Darwin and evolution' - yet betrayed the source of this 'knowledge' when they started spouting the 'we don't come from monkeys' line and 'I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog'. It didn't get nasty or too heated but we certainly reached an impass. It didn't matter what I said, they just didn't see it - and they couldn't see how I could believe in the 'religion' of Darwinism. It's weird, they are so normal and lovely people in most ways but they see the world through a particular filter. Against that, how can you really compete? It's not as if they are unintelligent, far from it, but they seem to have compartmentalised part of their brain. Telling them that sometimes shit just happens and what happened to them was just unlucky rather than divinely ordained I can see would offer no comfort to them as an alternative: maybe in such a situation I can even understand why a negative reason is better than someting happening for no reason at all. But it seems this bad experience has become a stick to beat themselves up with. I bet the church elders happily gave them the stick too.

Sorry for the long, rambling post but this is something very personal to me and I can really feel for what these ex-JW's have been through having seen some of it with my own eyes. It also has given me a real insight to the way the religious mind works - how otherwise intelligent people can be completely blinkered in this area of their lives. It is very scary.

Other Comments by chezzyd

21. Comment #176008 by Strigoia on May 6, 2008 at 10:44 am

Good for her. If I could just get my two brothers out of this religion, life would be better for my whole family (especially my brother's three children, who are being indoctrinated now). Alas, my oldest brother just started going back to the meetings, and as he's mentally unstable, it's not exactly easy to talk rationally to him.

Other Comments by Strigoia

22. Comment #176273 by Grumpy Max on May 7, 2008 at 4:25 am

Does this mean Jehovah's Witnesses don't eat black pudding?

I always have difficulty being impolite when they come a-knocking (although I have now learned not to invite strangers in for a cup of tea). I find it hard to express that I am quite happy already with the state of my soul and I do hate offending people. Which means they hang around a bit.

From now on I shall just say "No way, I'm not giving up black pudding for ANYBODY".

Other Comments by Grumpy Max

23. Comment #176362 by DamnDirtyApe on May 7, 2008 at 7:53 am

Just wondering something...

I recall the universe talk off TED. The guy liked to think of the physics explanation of it as a creation story (in the whole epic billions of years sense).

Is there any chance someone can make a pamphlet of that so when they come knocking on our doors to give us theirs we can give them one of ours?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

24. Comment #176419 by ExJehovahsWitness on May 7, 2008 at 9:40 am

Hey everyone,

I have plenty to offer on this subject as I was a witness for the first 24 years of my life. I served as a full-time door-to-door evangelist and ministerial servant (similar to a deacon).

Rod - I'm pretty sure that my mother, who has been a JW since 1972, carries the equivalent of a 'non-donor' card in her purse, the size of a credit card, which basically states that she refuses blood and organs on religious grounds.

It's her choice, and I'd like to think that I wouldn't countermand it. Fucking stupid choice though it be.
And she'd better not countermand my choice to have whatever the doctors feel is necessary.

Following someone to the operating theatre to get them to sign away their life for Jesus takes a special kind of cunt though IMHO.

Witnesses do indeed carry what is generally referred to as a "blood card" or advance medical directive. It states that they refuse blood transfusions in the event of an emergency. It was an interesting (and liberating) day when I finally threw mine out.

Also, due to the number of cases where doctors try to force witnesses to accept transfusions, members of the faith are now strongly encouraged by "the society" (witness lingo for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the official Jehovah's Witness organization) to fill out a multi-page legal document called a Durable Power of Attorney, which may be the document referred to in this news item.

Leaving the witnesses is extremely difficult. More than one close friend of mine has attempted suicide due to witness issues. I too spent a couple of years in a deep depression on my way out. These sites are incredibly helpful. Science be praised! These people need all the help they can get.

Recently, there has been a letter drafted that has brought some success to people who want to leave the sect (we should just start using the word cult) but who do not want to be permanently cut off from their families (so that they can attend family member's funerals, etc. among other things). You can see a copy of the letter and some really interesting correspondence with the Watchtower headquarters at www.watchtowerletters.com. It is one man's attempt to leave the organization after being harassed by the elders. So far it has worked. Includes taped conversations with church officials. Interesting stuff.

Also, if you know any witnesses whose reason you'd like to appeal to, may I suggest this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html.

That page singlehandedly sent me out of the organization. Two books later (Finding Darwin's God and The God Delusion) and I was out. My life has never been better.

Sorry for the long post. :) Thanks for reading.

Other Comments by ExJehovahsWitness

25. Comment #176424 by Prankster on May 7, 2008 at 10:00 am

Blood transfusions and leaving cults aside what actually compels people to join this organisation in the first place (apart from being born into, or marrying into a JW family)?

It's strikes me as odd reading from peoples experiences and what limited knowledge of JW I do have that people would subscribe or join such a "club" in the first place......curious.

But Kudos to Rachel for breaking her conditioning and programming and leaving the organisation

Other Comments by Prankster

26. Comment #176428 by Tezcatlipoca on May 7, 2008 at 10:04 am

I might have convinced some ex witness friends to come to the site to take a peak at this thread...yippee!

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

27. Comment #176431 by Podaar on May 7, 2008 at 10:08 am

25. Comment #176419 by ExJehovahsWitness

No apologies necessary, my friend. I enjoyed your post and find it inspirational. Thank you.

Prankster,

It's strikes me as odd reading from peoples experiences and what limited knowledge of JW I do have that people would subscribe or join such a "club" in the first place......curious.

I think it deserves research. If I ever heard of a scientific investigation into this question, I would personally donate.

Other Comments by Podaar

28. Comment #176434 by Prankster on May 7, 2008 at 10:17 am

Podaar

I wouldn't bother to do any research either for free or in my own time. I'd be inclined to find out only what makes these people tick......and then stay the hell away from them-don't what it is but I find them.....creepy? Must be the righteous fire in their gaze that tells them they are right, that's scaring me.

Also am I right in thinking that only a specific number of them are going to paradise when the end comes (144,000?)and who makes the decision who's going or am I mixing them up with another religious club?

Other Comments by Prankster

29. Comment #176435 by MaxD on May 7, 2008 at 10:18 am

I just got a Watchtower track on my porch last weekend. It is precisely the opposite of good reading.

Other Comments by MaxD

30. Comment #176437 by Prankster on May 7, 2008 at 10:22 am

One thing I did notice is that they tend not to bother door stepping or knocking on doors any more (not in this area anyway) but they do come out the woodwork especially around Xmas and Chocolate Bunny time-the rest of the year? Zilch!

Amazing.

Other Comments by Prankster

31. Comment #176439 by SamKiddoGordon on May 7, 2008 at 10:35 am

Its impossible to "lose ones faith"
One only gains reason.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

32. Comment #176440 by ExJehovahsWitness on May 7, 2008 at 10:38 am

Also am I right in thinking that only a specific number of them are going to paradise when the end comes (144,000?)and who makes the decision who's going or am I mixing them up with another religious club?

Let me put on my Jesus hat for a second here:

The witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will be resurrected to live in heaven. They get this from Revelation 14:1 which says:

"Then I looked and there was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, 2 and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." [New American Version]

As for the rest of human kind, they believe that there will be a judging of "the righteous and the unrighteous" and that those judged righteous will be resurrected to life on a "paradise earth". Everyone else will simply remain dead. Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in hell.

As for the question of why someone would get involved with witnesses, I could give a few reasons. Witnesses spend the vast majority of their time either learning how to teach the bible, studying the bible and bible related publications, or actually preaching. From a purely biblical perspective they can be extremely persuasive. People have an inherent need for meaning and structure in their lives (especially those in immigrant communities, who the witnesses are targeting all the more so as time goes on; in fact, my last assignment was with the Hmong immigrant community in Minnesota). Witnesses think they have the answer to that need and are good at explaining their reasons. Also, in my experience, most witnesses are extremely kind and generous people.

And (unfortunately) most people are more convinced by kindness than epistemological gymnastics.

At least for a while. When they change their mind they have a very hard road ahead of them.

Other Comments by ExJehovahsWitness

33. Comment #176445 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:58 am

ExJehovahsWitness,

When they change their mind they have a very hard road ahead of them.

But that's exactly the problem with religions, with religious institutions, with religious indoctrination etc... they deliberately make it as hard as possible to give up that faith, to abandon the group, or even to look upon thing objectively.

Assume you take religion seriously - you cannot marry someone who is not a member of your religious organisation because that would mean no religious ceremony, and thus living in sin before god - effect: You have a psychological barrier (erected through indoctrination) not to let yourself fall in love with someone who might question your faith and get you to question your faith.

You cannot just let those who do not follow your denomination be left alone. If you care about other people (which is a character-trait that is also conditioned), you want them not to suffer. Your religion tells you that all those who do not live according to your religion will suffer the worst fate possible: eternal torture/abandonment by god/termination of existence.
Not only this, you will be forever separated from them. Effect: A psychological imperative to convert others (think in memetic terms - very devious indeed).

You cannot grant your children the basic liberty and freedom to make up their own minds, because after all, religion is essential to their well-being, or even their not being punished eternally by god. You care for them, so you have to do anything and everything you can to ensure you will spend eternity reunited with them, and that they will enter the kingdom of heaven. Effect: Employing means that -if successful- make it impossible for your children to recognize fully and develop the ability to make full use of their liberty of conscience, freedom of thought and expression and their right to embrace or reject any religion they want. Spreading the meme - the cycle starts anew.

That's extremely devious... well engineered (not consciously so, but still) - but morally highly repulsive if you ask me. And definitely not compatible with an egalitarian society recognizing the priority of the basic liberties.

-Michael

Other Comments by MPhil

34. Comment #176447 by Podaar on May 7, 2008 at 11:12 am

34. Comment #176445 by MPhil

... well engineered (not consciously so, but still)

I find this a very interesting statement. Rather than engineered, are you saying religious dogmas [edit] (methods?)[/edit] have evolved in a natural selection manner and only appear to be designed?

-- Gregg

Other Comments by Podaar

35. Comment #176450 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 11:19 am

I think a part of it was certainly designed consciously. But I think much or most of the dogmas were engineered for slightly different purposes... keeping the people in check in times and places where there was no functioning law-enforcement mostly. Of course over the decades, centuries, millennia, much changed without consensus and vote ("evolved", for example from God being the "physically present", often interacting, personal, male deity to whose right you could literllay! sit to the "ground of all being" etc), and some changed with consensus and vote (Vatican II for example).

Of course the power to enforce social cohesion through such psychological mechanisms was somehow intended (I think), but not as such as it acts today.

Difficult subject.

Other Comments by MPhil

36. Comment #176452 by ExJehovahsWitness on May 7, 2008 at 11:22 am

MPhil: Agreed, on all counts.

Podaar:

I find this a very interesting statement. Rather than engineered, are you saying religious dogmas [edit] (methods?)[/edit] have evolved in a natural selection manner and only appear to be designed?

I think that is pretty close to the definition of a meme and I certainly think that that is what religions are. They tend to begin with intention but over time split and change and die off very much like replicators in natural selection.

In the extremely off chance that you aren't familiar with memes, you can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

I just think the Jehovah's Witness meme is an especially hardy, pernicious one.

Other Comments by ExJehovahsWitness

37. Comment #176454 by Podaar on May 7, 2008 at 11:27 am

My opinion is there has been a little of both.

For example; Mormon theology can easily be seen as an 'accident' that had a side benefit (from Joe Smith's view) of providing extra control over followers. After Joe realised people would go to almost any length to provide for him if he kept playing prophet, the engineered controls started to filter in (i.e. weird underwear and such).

Larger religions have just had more time to refine the strangeness.

Other Comments by Podaar

38. Comment #176455 by Prankster on May 7, 2008 at 11:28 am

ExJehovahsWitness

Thanks for clearing that up -obviously the electronic format for posting can be read wrongly but let me assure I mean no disrespect when I say "club" or "Getting involved"

You obviously had a difficult time being a witness and a worse one when you left.

Religion (in any form) is not something I feel comfortable with anymore after suffering 3rd degree burns caused by red hot catholicism being inflicted on me-brrr not a nice time at all!

Other Comments by Prankster

39. Comment #176505 by D'Arcy on May 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm

When JWs knock on my door, (assuming I'm not in the middle of something else), I regard them as fair game for a debate. Part of my equation is that every minute spent with me is one less minute spent with someone else, upon whom they may have some influence, unlike yours truly. Topics have included such monumental issues as "Who did Cain marry?" (his own sister); "When the lamb lies down with the lion, what happens to the lion's digestive system?", (evolution to vegetarian diet), and so on.

I have unfailingly found them to be polite, well spoken, and well versed in biblical quotes. I hadn't realised that they didn't believe in Hell. That used to be one of my cut offs: "Sorry mate, but I'm going to the hot dark place when I die." But then didn't Jesus threaten Hell on non-believers?

Other Comments by D'Arcy

40. Comment #176510 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 2:09 pm

D'Arcy...


... had any success whatsoever in talking to them? What was the most that accomplished?

Some Christians, and some Christian sects do not believe in hell as a place of torment. Many (most central-European Christians e.g.) believe it to be "the eternal absence god and separation from loved ones" (which for them is the worst fate imaginable, and the same criticism as to a literal hell applies).

Then there are those who believe in "annihilationalism", that those who aren't saved are simply "annihilated".
This can well be said to contradict scripture and dogma.
For that, (also to use in debate about the inconsistency of annihilationalism), see here:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=400

So, basically - the only interpretation coherent with dogma and scripture is that unbelievers suffer eternal torture. And then you got 'em by the balls for being utterly immoral in thinking such a thing to be just.

Other Comments by MPhil

41. Comment #176542 by justdust on May 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm

ExJehovasWitness

Spot on. I agree with all you've said. I'm a devout atheist and have been married to a lovely JW for 20 years. We agree to disagree - it works!

Outside of the religion (I find it hard to regard it as a cult or a sect) they are always polite, kind and generous - decent people.

On the very few occasions that I've been to the hall I have to say I found the experience dark and a bit creepy. Certainly those you meet higher up the JW hierarchy are darker and creepier. Those at the bottom of the food chain are happy as sheep and the support structure is very good - you can see why vunerable people once in can never leave.

I too have 2nd hand experience of the double standards that the JWs have with regard to adulterous behaviour. They make it up as they go along - dreadful.

The blood thing isn't going to be an issue in our house because as the head of the household (a man!) I pull rank - I hope I don't have to use it again.

What also gets my goat though is the disregard for democracy and not voting. Lots of people died for my right to vote - to me it is valuable. Not voting leads to JWs not being able to do their thing - but I think they like feeling persecuted.

I could go on all night - but I won't

Other Comments by justdust

42. Comment #182374 by Frankiemouse on May 19, 2008 at 9:54 pm

@ rod-the-farmer
i used to be a jw and in the few congregations that i had attended those papers were not only available at the "church" it was strongly encouraged that you get your own copy, carefully consider them, fill them out, and have them copied, shared with your doctors, and even carry a copy on your person in case something happened so in case something did happen you wouldn't have to make the decision "in the heat of the moment".

it's not my intent to defend them, or their beliefs. i've had issues with many of their inconsistencies from early on, but basically did what i was told/obeyed my parents. i haven't read all the comments and am so late to this party that mine will probably never be read.

my only issue with this article and others like it is that they almost always have a sentence, or two that are totally inaccurate. i agree with everything that is being said, but then you get to a total misrepresentation and often it's made by someone who should know better. that's what make me start to wonder at times if i made the right decision. when i think about it through the misrepresentation while it seems overt and intentional, in the end, does not nullify my doubts, or the other, very important, points made.

@MPhil i took a very brief look at that web page and would like to explain jw's interpretation as best as i can remember it if you'd like. like i said i'm not trying to defend their beliefs, but the refutations on the page that i noticed would not be enough to satisfy, or dissuade me in any way from what they teach. they seem to be reasoned, but not reasoned by someone who is familiar with their arguments.

i have a sinking feeling that this comment will be seen as an attempt to justify jw beliefs. it's not. i'd not be saying anything if the arguments were logically sound against their particular reasonings. i no longer believe the jw teachings, or the "unerring-ness" of the bible, but a few of the arguments against are particular points lacking from my point of view.

maybe it's just me. maybe, as i get more and more removed from the indoctrination i'll see it more clearly. i know what i remember being taught. i think the jw way is that if something in the bible contradicts their teaching they jump on the "some parts of the bible are meant to be symbolic and others are meant to be literal." and they interpret it in such a way to support their view. when you do that is seems to make more sense than it really does. i think i'm starting to see that better every day.

Other Comments by Frankiemouse

43. Comment #357791 by Sciros on March 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm

faith zam


Other Comments by Sciros

44. Comment #357793 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on March 30, 2009 at 12:21 pm

someone's taking the piss, right?

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

45. Comment #357796 by MRA on March 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Sadly, I doubt they are taking the piss. However, they seem to be on a mission at the moment, I received more leaflets this week Its a good job for them that I wasn't in, I would gladly have given them my copy of The God Delusion and asked them to read it (which probably equates to the amount of leaflets me and my family have received over the years).

Other Comments by MRA

46. Comment #357799 by Prankster on March 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Thought this particular thread died some 12 months ago? Now it's become a necro-thread or zombie thread, and just in time for dead jewish zombie holiday time-or as the religious call it, "Easter"

By the way faith zam, press caps lock ok? Or has that old-time religion got you and you're showing us your deep,deep fervour?

This looks and reads like a poster from a few weeks back calling himself "ISLAM" or "BIG BANG". I'm just wondering if He's taking the piss out of th site in general or (horror of horrors) he's converted and accepted one set of myths and fairy stories for another and he's come on here under another guise?

Other Comments by Prankster

47. Comment #357802 by decius on March 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Comment #357788 by faith zam

Don't worry, dumbass, I always open the door to your sorry ilk. Invariably, THEY come to regret it.

Other Comments by decius

48. Comment #357806 by Tezcatlipoca on March 30, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Comment #357788 by faith zam on March 30, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Cap locks .... srsly

turn them off.

How to great these types of "guests"

http://churchofrationalism.blogspot.com/2009/03/and-get-your-kicks-for-free_25.html

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

49. Comment #357809 by Prankster on March 30, 2009 at 12:53 pm

Just read the link-fuckin' hilarious!

Other Comments by Prankster

50. Comment #357812 by Caudimordax on March 30, 2009 at 12:57 pm

IF I WANET TO TAKE STUDIES AND OF CORSE I SAID YES.SINCE I'VE BEEN TAKING MY STUDIES I'VE BEEN MORE CALM & RELAX

Did these studies include any of the finer points of the English language, such as grammar and spelling?

Other Comments by Caudimordax