User talk:BlackCab/Archive 2

Penton's book

In response to this statement-

You don't agree with Penton's opinions, though you haven't read his book. Now that's an open mind. BlackCab (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

One needs not to eat excrement to know that it is harmful. One can see from the smell and look of it, that it is damaging to eat. The same is true of spiritual food. At work, I have to work very hard to stay positive towards some students from the inner city, who don't really want to learn and who can be very misbehaved and rude. Some teachers can be critical and negative, some maintain a very positive spirit to both the students and the administration. From my experience, working with those teachers who maintain that positive spirit, is a pleasure, and it makes work so much better and helps me to maintain a positive attitude, which reflects in the way I treat the students. The same is true in religion. We can easily give in to faultfinding and a negative, resistant spirit. But even if I didn't wish to stay as one of JW, I know enough about it that there is some good in it, and if I have some ideas which can make it better, why not present it in a positive way, rather than in a critical or slanderous, negative way. So, I've seen enough of Penton's work to realize that he does know a lot, he is educated, and knows how to write, but, he is negative, faultfinding, and resorts to tactics which are unethical, in trying to damage the reputation of JW. So, for me, that is like spiritual excrement. It's unncecessary to read a book like that. If I were to read Holden's book, Starks's book, any number of writers who have written about JW, who bring out both the good and bad, but do it in a non-judgmental way, then that's fine, I'll read, buy and use that book. I did read Holden's book, even though it wasn't all praiseworthy, but somewhat critical in some respects. But Penton's work is low, he resorts to low tactics and there is no reason for me to feed my mind on that type of thing, regardless of his degree. There are proud and unethical people who have doctorates, there are doctors who are arrested for corruption. The degree is not evidence of a man's character.

The Bible says, "Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well spoken of, whatever virtue there is and whatever praiseworthy thing there is, continue considering these things. 9 The things that YOU learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these; and the God of peace will be with you.

Penton approaches JW in a manner that is from the viewpoint of an agnostic, who disdains persons and religions with strong faith. The Bible says, there is "no wisdom" "in opposition to Jehovah". Darwin was a very smart man, but, he lacked wisdom because he basically rejected God. There is no reason for me to read Darwin's book, Hitler's book, or Penton's for that matter. I've already considered all of those viewpoints, and reject them, so there's no need to go further with it. Natural (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

I think you are being disingenuous. You know Penton was disfellowshipped on the grounds of apostasy. You are programmed by the Watch Tower Society to obey them and avoid reading anything by someone described as an apostate. The WTS brands someone an apostate, expels them and orders the faithful to shun them when they realize that the individual has begun thinking for himself, seeing through the garbage coming from the society and is therefore becoming a threat to a leadership that doesn't like to be challenged.

Penton's book is well researched. It contains both positive and negative material. You are in no position to judge the tone of the book because you refuse to read it out of obedience to the rules imposed by the WTS. One day you might wake up to the extent that organization controls your life. The scripture you quote contains the very important line, often ignored, that we should consider things "of serious concern". Penton's book, like those of Franz, contains much information of serious concern that reveals the deception practised by the WTS in order to maintain its hold on Witnesses. The society often uses that scripture you quoted to persuade Witnesses they should stick to the WTS, but the scripture deals with what the Bible teaches, not what a high-control, paranoid man-made religion teaches. It's such subtle manipulation, backed up with constant repetition, that sucks in people like you because you cease thinking about what they actually tell you.

Similarly your comment about there being no wisdom in opposition to Jehovah ... Penton's book is not critical of God, but it takes a very close look at a religious organization that presumptuously claims to be God's representative. Franz presents very detailed evidence that shows the WTS itself is in opposition to God with the way it robs people of their Christian conscience and seeks to control people in precisely the same way the Pharisees did and many other religions do. Unfortunately you seem too deeply trapped in the mind control of the WTS to see this. BlackCab (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice

I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry, I made a post here, without understanding what you did. Ciao. Natural (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Hi

Jeffro suggested you may be able to recommend some good books for me to read on JW's. Thought I'd ask. Thanks for any help. Vyselink (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. The five books you'll find easiest to obtain are:

• The two Franz books, Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom;
• James Penton's Apocalypse Delayed;
• Andrew Holden's Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement; and
• A People For His Name by Tony Willis.

Franz's books are both excellent and make compelling reading. The first is Franz's first-hand account of his gradual realization of the hardline, organization-obsessed and often hypocritical attitude of the Governing Body and the events surround his expulsion; the second is a much longer book that is a critique of the organization and its beliefs and requirements from the viewpoint of someone who was obviously at the pinnacle of their decision-making process before bailing out. Penton's is a well-documented, well-researched history of the organization, while Holden provides an outsider's view of the religion as a detached sociologist who spent much time embedded with a congregation. Wills' book (previously published under the name Timothy White) is a fascinating book that deals mostly with the early history (Russell and Rutheford years mainly) that covers much ground found in no other books. It spends much time on Russell's early doctrines and the huge changes forced on the organization by Rutherford.

Beyond that there are several very valuable books that you'll have to search for on ebay or Amazon or Abebooks.

• The Trumpet of Prophecy by James Beckford (1975). It is a landmark sociological study of the Witnesses in England, writen by an academic for an academic audience, but filled with insights on the methodology of the Watch Tower Society, the reason for the grasp they have on Witnesses, and the reasons why people become Witnesses. It is quite dry in places, yet powerful and thoroughly researched, but for the inexplicable gaffe of failing to note that the Witnesses no longer believe Christ returned invisibly in 1874.
• Counting the Days to Armageddon by Robert Crompton (1996). This book is concerned almost exclusively with tracing the intricate development of JW eschatology through all its stages. It again is exhaustively researched and unrivalled in its coverage of that specific area of interest, explaining how Russell arrived at the dates he did and noting how Rutherford cast aside the reason and logic of Russell's arguments to impose his own doctrinaire dates.
• Millions Now Living Will Never Die by Alan Rogerson (1969) is an English book that examines the history of the organization, its doctrines and the lifestyle of members. It is a little more lightweight, but still includes aspects of WTS history not covered by some other works.
• State and Salvation: The Jehovah's Witnesses and Their Fight for Civil Rights by William Kaplan (1989). A carefully researched book by a lawyer examining the shameful treatment of Witnesses in the US and Canada from the early to mid-1900s and their efforts to gain legal protection for their right to worship and preach.
• Crisis of Allegiance: A Study of Dissent Among Jehovah's Witnesses (1986) by James A. Beverley. This is a knockout book. It is slim but a real eye-opener, focused on a wave of expulsions and defections in JW congregations in Canada in the late 1980s prompted by the WTS taking a dislike to James Penton: the Society first decided they considered him a bit too clever and wanted him out and then tried to work out a way of getting rid of him ... with rather unexpected consequences.

You also may find interest in these lesser works:

• Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave by William Schnell (still available, reasonably interesting but written with a certain level of bile);
• A couple of books by former Witness Edmund Gruss -- The Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation (1972) and The Four Presidents of the Watch Tower Society (2003). Both seem to have been written more with a sledgehammer than a pen, but contains some powerful anti-JW argumentation;
• The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses (1984) by Heather and Gary Botting, who build their book around the powerful similarities between Orwell's Big Brother and the Watch Tower Society. It's powerfully argued and entertaining, but contains nothing you won't learn in a more academic fashion from, say Franz and Penton.

There are obviously some crossovers of information between many of those books, but each is sufficiently targeted to provide the sort of information you require. Some were obviously written after Franz's expulsion in 1981 and refer to that; two of them (Rogerson, Beckford) were written in the years approaching 1975, when the Witnesses expected Armageddon to take place, so it is quite fascinating to see their predictions of what would happen if the Witnesses were wrong and the world didn't end there. Several of the authors also acknowledge that their books will never be read by active Witnesses; Beckford details the reason why that is so from a sociological viewpoint.

So much to read, Vyselink! Disappointingly, books by active Witnesses are as rare as hen's teeth because of their fear of displeasing the Society: books by Marley Cole and AH Macmillan (both apparently vetted by the Society) are downloadable and there's another (I haven't read) written by Penton while he was a Witness on persecution of the Witnesses in Canada. The Society applauded the book, but turned against him while he researched Apocalpyse Delayed and ensured he was expelled as an apostate before it was pubished to ensure the faithful never read it.

Hope that helps. What's interesting is the contrast between what you'll read in those books and the version of history presented by the Witnesses in their own history books, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (in the WT Library, which is downloadable) and Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (also downloadable). Good luck and happy reading. BlackCab (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much BlackCab. Those books will undoubtedly provide me with a lot of information. I already have the first Franz book, Crisis of Conscience, which is what got me started looking into the religion that I was raised in, and that my mother is still completely devoted to. This is so much more than I expected, I figured a list of books would be what I got lol. Again, thank you for the advice, I will get these all eventually (ah, the economy and money problems, gotta love em lol). Good luck. Vyselink (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi BlackCab, Vyselink; thanks for your contributions. Please excuse my presumption for butting in on your exchange, but there are a number of other significant books on JWs I thought you might enjoy, Vyselink:

• Carl Olof Jonsson, The Gentile Times Reconsidered: according to the Introduction, Jonsson was a Swedish elder and pioneer when, in 1968, one of his 'Bible studies' challenged him to prove WT's date of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem. (As you may know, in WT chronology this date is crucial for establishing (1) 1914 as the date of Christ's return and, subsequently, (2) the date when Jesus appointed WT Society as his earthly representatives. Secular historians, however, are fairly settled that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE.) By the end of 1975, Jonsson had reluctantly concluded that WT was wrong. He wrote up his research into a meticulously-referenced scholarly treatise which he sent to Brooklyn in 1977, convinced that WT would honestly and objectively honour their promise to evaluate the evidence. Instead, Bert Schroeder (a senior member of the Governing Body) told a meeting of European branch committee members that the Society had no intention of abandoning the 607 BCE date. Jonsson was disfellowshipped in 1982 after a long campaign of slander by WT representatives. This treatise, revised and expanded, was publised in 1983 as The Gentile Times Reconsidered.

• Carl Olof Jonsson's second book, The Sign of the Last Days - When?, forensically dissects Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24 and WT's assertion that the "last days" began in 1914.

• Don Cameron's Captives of a Concept is a fairly short (147 pages) but intensive examination of WT's teaching regarding the "faithful and discrete slave" (Matthew 24:45-47, NWT) which Cameron shows is the most important scripture in WT theology, and how it is this teaching which holds JWs captive to the WT organisation.

• Jim Penton's Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich is a disturbing examination of WT's anti-Semitism and cynical offers of collusion with the Third Reich, which possibly even hastened and intensified the subsequent brutal treatment meted out to individual German Jehovah's Witnesses.

• Kerry Louderback-Wood's "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusion, and the Tort of Misrepresentation" published in Baylor University's Journal of Church and State, available online. This academic article details how WT has made 'misrepresentations' ('lies' to you and me) to its members about the dangers of blood transfusions and the benefits of its recommended alternatives, and had not fully disclosed to its membership changes of policy which allowed transfusions of blood components; all of which would allow a harmed JW - or surviving relative(s) - to sue the WT Society.

• Diane Wilson's Awakening of a Jehovah's Witness is, in my opinion, one of the best - if not the best - of the many xJW memoirs, particularly as it's written from a female perspective. As well as being immensely readable, it's very well documented and referenced, and chapter 18 is a useful listing of WT's major doctrinal flip-flops.

Apologies for going on so long: I only intended to type a quick paragraph! Anyway, Vyselink, I hope it's been helpful.

BlackCab, it seems we've had very similar experiences as JWs. Enjoyed your User page.

Kind regards, WeeBaldie 15:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeBaldie (talk • contribs)

Redundant

You are right that what you deleted is redundant, but much of this article is. So either we need to deleted much of the information, which I would be happy to start to do, or let what you deleted remain with the rest of the redundancy. 02:15, 13 December 2010 Johanneum (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the Chryssides' repetition of a statement already in the article is redundant. There is no justification for letting it remain, so I don't know why you'd suggest that as an option. Without knowing what else you think is redundant, I can't comment on your next suggestion to delete "much of the information". There are obviously statements in there that are poorly supported by the sources and I've just deleted a couple of those. There are possibly more, but I haven't looked. BlackCab (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I accidentally edited the wrong previous version for my minor edit. Thanks for the catch.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Founding date of Bible Student Movement

Greetings! AuthorityTam has started a discussion on the date for the founding of the Bible Student movement. I changed the date in the infobox for the Jehovah's Witnesses article this morning from 1876 to 1879. The discussion is being held on the Talk page of the Bible Student movement article. I would be most appreciative if you could add your views. In past discussions with AuthorityTam he has not been easy to talk to and it hasn't helped that nobody else participated. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did notice the conversation and was interested to read what you both read. I'll post a comment there, for what it's worth. BlackCab (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your thoughts. Your input will be important. In past discussions with AuthorityTam it has often been he and I, and usually he is rather forceful and I just back down out of frustration. It would be much easier for a consensus to be reached among more than two editors. JW publications focus on 1876, but that isn't consistent with the historical facts in this particular context. The key to this matter is identifying what body of beliefs were unique to CTR and when they were first established as a unit. My contention is that prior to his meeting Barbour there was nothing unique about his views. In fact, he and the Allegheny Bible Church had rejected time prophecy. It wasn't until he met with Barbour that he began to give it serious consideration. Time prophecy would certainly be one of the essential beliefs as part of the unique set. Also important was his rejection of the Rapture and that occurred in 1878. The furthest back I am willing to concede would be 1877 when CTR stated that Three Worlds was the first book to combine the ideas of restitution and time prophecy. But in point of fact, there was no impetus to create what we could designate a "movement" until after the split with Barbour in 1879. Russell went off and started the Watch Tower (journal and Society), and Barbour went off and started the Church of the Strangers. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Sent you an email responding to your "About Me" story with the intent of being helpful because I can empathize with your experiences, but it now occurs to me that it might have come across a bit differently. My sincerest apologies if it comes across as inappropriate. Such was not intended. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied to you a week ago but not sure if you received it or not. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I did thanks and will get back. BlackCab (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

JFR and the founding of the JWs

Not quite sure I understand why you've removed my edits on the JFR article. I admit that there is some "contention", but it was started by AuthorityTam. Nobody else disagreed until he chimed in. Now, my edits are not accepted and what that means is that essentially I have to bow to him. I don't desire to to that. As you well know there was no such thing as a "Jehovah's Witness" prior to 1931. What's more their entire organizational and doctrinal standing are diametrically opposed to Russell's. So, can you please help me understand where you are coming from here? I must admit to being incredibly frustrated in this matter. I do not intend to bow to AuthorityTam and will stand up for myself in this issue when dealing with him. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just added a comment on the talk page that explains my position. Wikipedia depends on sources, not opinions, and the dominant view of sources supplied here so far is that Rutherford did not "establish" Jehovah's Witnesses. I was not convinced by your argumentation initially, but was prepared (still with some reservations) to support the claim when you provided a couple of references, because the claim is arguable and reasonable. The long list of sources supplied by AT, however, indicates that that view is not widely held. I understand where you're coming from, but given the evolutionary background of Jehovah's Witnesses, I think it's safer and less problematic to simply avoid stating as a fact that JFR started JWs. I'd similarly oppose a statement saying that CTR started JWs; to my mind neither statement is explicitly true. The JW article states that the religion emerged from the Bible Student movement, and notes Rutherford's very significant input into its development, but there, too, it is too contentious to state as a fact that JFR founded the religion when the majority of sources say something else. BlackCab (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I respect you, and even like you. You're a nice guy, and you're honest. I think we've worked well together. But in this particular matter I have to disagree. The majority of references provided came about through the constant pressure of the Society to make it appear that the Bible Students had all but disappeared and many references were inspired by them. You know as well as I do that many encyclopedic entries were put together from information gathered by the editors from the organizations themselves. Rutherford's role in the schism was downplayed, and the idea that the JWs are Russell's spiritual heirs became the common view. This happened only because of their flexing their muscles. So to state that the JWs were founded by Russell is historically and factually false. He founded the WTS, not the JWs. What are the JWs? They are their own religion. They believe some things that Russell believed, but in the main they believe and operate in an entirely different way. It really bugs me that AuthorityTam can get away with this stuff. It's starting to make me angry. He has manipulated the system to get what he wants, and it's unfair and dishonest. Pastorrussell (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And you're sure you're not angry just because you're not getting what you want? The Rutherford article had no mention of who founded JWs until you added it in January. It looks to me that AuthorityTam didn't insist on adding Russell's name to the article as the founder, only removing Rutherford's, because he believes that's not true. And incidentally, I don't think the term "vast" at the JW page will last long. It is injecting a certain amount of hyperbole. "Vast changes" would describe a religious movement that turned into a sporting association or that reversed all its teachings and beliefs. It was a millenerian religion under Russell and remained so, despite the many doctrinal, chronological and ideological changes. BlackCab (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't much patience for people who wrap themselves in the garb of religion and manipulate the system (whichever "system") to get what they want. I'm angry because what he is doing is factually and historically wrong. As an historian (my Major, my degree, my study, and my passion) I cannot assent to historical inaccuracy, especially when such inaccuracy gets by simply because someone knows how to follow the letter of the law and as a result the spirit is broken. Can you not see where this is going however? He has however many dozen references that support his view that CTR founded the JWs. He has the references. Wait three weeks and see. Or maybe it will be longer. But someday he will go to the article and change it - he's done this kind of thing before. It upsets me when people do that, and others don't fight it because then it makes me look like I'm some kind of fanatic when all I'm doing is standing up for what is right. Granted, in some matters it is semantics, but in the bigger picture it isn't, and that's how I'm looking at it. Pastorrussell (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I came across this after I made my edit. I have removed 'vast' for the same reason stated by BlackCab above. Many fundamental concepts remain essentially the same, though some core doctrines have changed significantly. PastorRussell, if you do not accept what is stated in the available sources, you need to provide alternative reliable sources rather than simply asserting that you don't like what the existing sources say. That said, the articles' presentation of Rutherford's role in the schism seems fairly balanced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am asking this in all sincerity and kindness - please explain to me what "fundamental concepts remain essentially the same" between the Bible Students and the Jehovah's Witnesses. From my vantage point, trying hard to look at it objectively, the differences are indeed vast. Some of the similarities with the JWs also exist with the Seventh Day Adventists. I'm not referring to prophetic interpretation (i.e. the Gentile Times ending in 1914) but actual doctrine. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained my view, reflected in the statements of almost every author of books on the JWs, that there were major changes in the administration, ideological outlook and prophetic chronology of the group once Rutherford took control. That said, the teachings Russell espoused were focused on the belief that Christ had returned invisibly and was waiting to take action to cleanse the earth and establish a 1000-year reign of righteousness over the earth, which would be the start of God's Kingdom. He believed it was part of God's purpose that watchful Christians would be able to extract from the Bible indicators of when that would take place, and he believed mankind was on the brink of all that activity. He saw those watchful Christians as being akin to guards on the watchtower who would be able to see into the distance and warn of what was to come. Today, Jehovah's Witnesses hold all those views; they still wait for the end of the "system" and the Kingdom which they believe is imminent because they still hold much of Russell's teachings about being in the last days and what's yet to come. Among all the world's religions and Christian denominations, they are quite unique in holding those views, so they are unlike the Baptists, the Catholics and other mainstream, orthodox denominations in their focus. That to me indicates they hold the same fundamental beliefs. BlackCab (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

NPA

You may notice I have removed part of your comment in this edit. This is permitted per WP:TALKO and WP:NPA. I have advised AuthorityTam here that I will simply delete future personal attacks (which I will do where possible to extract the irrelevant material without disrupting content-based discussion). If the behaviour continues, I will raise an ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's best gone. There's enough heat on the page already. I was contemplating going back to take it out when he responded with his own peculiar brand of idiocy. I'll try to restrain myself in future. BlackCab (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Stop Making Personal Attacks

Kindly stop making personal attacks on me whenever the editing is not in harmony with your personal belief system. Also, it would be better not to make general biased statements of a defamatory nature in the talk page or otherwise against Jehovah's Witnesses, such as referring to them as a cult or cultlike. The clear anti-JW and antagonistic bias is very evident in these statements. Thanks. Natural (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

I haven't read Beckford, but have read Holden, and your strainer strains out all the positive and leaves only the negative. You have taken a decidedly negative, in your own way, narrow-minded view of the subject, to the point, that you can also see, Black. It's not all black, and maybe its not all white. There is plenty of positive in the Jehovah's Witness religion! Holden's book is does not heap criticism on JW, unless your strainer only captures the negative. It's mixed.Natural (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Stop being such a baby. I am not making personal attacks. I am commenting on the tiresome, narrow-minded, cultish viewpoint you keep advancing. BlackCab (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Excommunication and so on

Hi BlackCab,

As our recent misunderstanding, I´d like to untangle it.

"A variety of controls can be enforced, from restriction of duties and discretions or an access privileges, can be enforced by the congregation in a relation with those who sinned. Excommunication, known as disfellowshipping, and shunning by the congregation. Members who are disfellowshipped have an opportunity to regain membership."

"A variety of controls can be enforced, from restriction of duties performed in the congregation to excommunication, known as disfellowshipping, and shunning by the congregation. Members who are disfellowshipped have an opportunity to regain membership. The practice of disfellowshipping has been criticized by many non-members and ex-members."

What is incomprehensibly? Sentences are easy.

(1) restriction of duties and discretions
(===not only duties, .... it couldnt be pain if you lost duties = additional work for free)
(voluntary doing -- so more suitable is "discretions", "access privileges")
(Loss of duties is good and highly welcome. So couldnt be pain if you lost them.)

(2) restriction of access privileges...by the congregation...in a relation with those...who sinned.
(no comment...extremely easy)

(3) "The practice of disfellowshipping has been criticized by many non-members and ex-members."
(Criticism is expected to this subject of article. So that sentence is not coherent and significant for that subject. This sentence is not helpful there.)

--FaktneviM (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your native language is, but much of this wording makes no sense in English. It therefore doesn't belong in the article. BlackCab (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but You understand it. --FaktneviM (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The grammar is terrible. And what it seems to mean is incorrect.

Restriction of duties isn't enforced by "the congregation", it's imposed by elders. Restriction of duties is used as a punishment because it is intended to cause the person shame and embarrassment. Your opinion that losing duties is good is not relevant to the intended purpose of the punishment. JW members in general don't have any special "access privileges" to lose. It's not clear in this context what is meant by "discretions".

The original wording indicates a range of punishments, from restrictions through to disfellowshipping, but your tangled wording removes that contrast and turns the statement about disfellowshipping into an awkward sentence fragment.

You also made changes introducing a biased point of view. Many things that JWs are punished for are not generally regarded by most people as sins. You also deleted the statement about criticism, however WP:LEAD states that the article lead should include "any prominent controversies".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"by the congregation" and "by elders" are synonym, because action by elders to members is in fact practized by whole local congregation and all members. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the 'whole congregation' doesn't impose restrictions on members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result of shunning for who sinned is other congreagation memebrs reject contact with him. So its applicated by all. Easy. :)) --FaktneviM (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Shunning is practised by congregations members, but you've claimed that restrictions are imposed by others. You're just wrong. Stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point up that duties are forced doing. While discretions and privileges mean something good what is available as extras. Loss of privleges and dicreations is a penalty. But loss of duties never mind them. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding here seems to be based on your limited knowledge of English. Your use of 'discretions' here is quite unusual. JW 'privileges' are 'duties' in the typical sense, but the JW culture attaches a sense of pride to those duties, and the 'punishment' derived from 'restrictions' is the shame of losing those 'privileges'.

Sins means sins from the Bible point of view. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, 'sins' here means what JW leadership says are sins. Many JW 'sins' are not specifically stated in the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Could You demonstrate any specific examples of such a different understanding, please? --FaktneviM (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this refers to actions that may invite any form of JW 'discipline', there are many such 'reasons' that are not explicitly stated in the Bible, for example (in no specific order): Smoking, abortion, blood transfusion (previously also vaccinations and organ transplants), voting, failing to preach, associating with disfellowshipped, researching the JW religion in non-JW sources, celebrating a birthday or Christmas.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that many of such teachings are not in the Bible presented exceptionally. However 2000 and more years ago we can´t expect literal talking about transfussion, abortion or smoking. Bible can´t teach about all possible questions. Important is, as they teach, "meditate about sense of relating verses and think how could be practized in my life". "It is often claimed importance of every man own conscience". But nothing of that problematical understanding can´t be considered as conscious lies. So far I saw zero of persuasive verses, which is in JW religion "translated" falsely or even consciously wrong. Neither by You, nor from my personal reasearch, nor by anyone else. So far. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In the context of your specific claim about "since from the Bible point of view", whether the JW doctrines are "conscious lies" is quite irrelevant. The point is that many of the things are only their interpretation, and not a clear "Bible point of view". Please stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted criticism because as I stated before: "This sentence is not helpful there. Criticism is expected to this subject of article. So that sentence is not coherent and significant for that subject."

--FaktneviM (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines for the lead, as already stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is similar statement like "horse can ride" or "prisoners usualy criticized their jailer", "prisoner dont like his imprisonment" ... These statements are needless. Everyone know that. --FaktneviM (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop. The lead is a summary of the article content, and for this reason it states notable controversies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No matter that Wiki suggesting to include statements, what are unimportant and perspicuous to readers). Is there any reason to think that is not the same situation as in my examples? --FaktneviM (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My initial contact with FaktneviM was about his garbled English and incomprehensible statements. If there's any more discussion on the content of the article, the appropriate place to do it is at the article talk page. But given his poor grasp of both English (and JW organisational procedures), I don't see that he's able to make much of a meaningful contribution to the English Wikipedia. Insisting that "sentences are easy" and that is the responsibility of others to make sense of his nonsense also doesn't help. BlackCab (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statements are easy. Incomprehensible are only for You. Someone normal could understand them. Reason why You not understand me is because You don´t want it. Anyway, that was not initial contact. Please avoid negative classification of other people which You dont know. Friendly regards. --FaktneviM (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling BlackCab abnormal is hardly friendly. The point is that your level of English is indeed quite poor, and it is not only BlackCab who would have problems interpreting your statements.

My apologize for unpremeditated word. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry BlackCab, I've responded here to the statements here. But if you like, you might want to move the whole section to the article's Talk page.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting exchange here, where FakteniM is arguing that another editor is too stupid to understand his invented English phrases. BlackCab (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

However it was purpose, because I know you both will see that talk as well. Its not suprise. I wanted to know how you react on that. That another talk should be started several days before ours, but it was my purpose to resolve both questions together and in the same time. Please do not think, that was sh like personal attack on you. My findings and analysis only. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I only became aware of that other discussion through this page, but it seems fairly clear that if various editors have independently stated that your level of English is difficult to comprehend, then it is not merely a coincidence, nor is it 'laziness' on the part of the English-speaking editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry

I ran that non-English text that you removed from Talk:JW through google translate, just in case it was relevant or useful input. Looks like it was entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

.... LOL --FaktneviM (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That was much worse than my Czenglish :-) (++ Spanglish, Frenglish, Swenglish, Engrish, List of dialects of the English language ++). While beeing here at Wikipedia, there is one general problem - All the World - speak different languages (suprise!). --FaktneviM (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and Explain

Hi again. Your latest change <blockquote>Restore material that was deleted, not moved "to archive"</blockquote> is truthful, but I also did not lie. It was moved to different archive page. Have a nice day. (USA is about UTC -8 to -15 hours) ---- :)) ---- Did you liked a barnstar? -Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I too have made comments on talk pages I'd later wished I hadn't, but under normal circumstances we don't go back and delete them. The thread will be archived to the appropriate place in due course. BlackCab (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Your comment at my Talk page was overwritten in an edit conflict. I have chosen not to restore it, as FaktneviM has indicated he is, in the coming days, going to exercise his right to vanish on the English Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC) It's the slowest disappearing act in history. BlackCab (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a line.

I know that I'm barging my way into your talk page, but I felt compelled to tell you something after looking at your user page. At the risk of sounding glib; I hope that you don't judge something the wrong way, which at its core is good just because of imperfect man. Just a thought from a Jehovah's Witness, and ultimately a human being. I wish you well. Lighthead ^þ 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't sound glib, you sound gullible. Jehovah's Witnesses leaders and members are fond of using the "don't judge us, we're only imperfect" line about the failings of the organisation and for many years I accepted that.

I note from your user page that you joined the religion a year ago. I signed my life over to it in 1986, so I have a little more exposure to it than you do. In the end I left because I realised it was all a hollow shell, based on the notion that its leadership repeats ad nauseum that it is "God's organisation". The more I probed -- the unchristian manner in which it sets itself up as the rulemaker and judge, creating endless rules on conduct (and yet criticising the Pharisees for having done the very same thing!), the control it holds over its members and the shameful way in which it controls information to its members, its refusal to admit wrong, its vindictiveness, its insistence on unquestioning obedience, its demands that those who quit be shunned by family and friends -- the more I realised it was an entirely manmade organisation with no greater claim to represent God than any other Christian denomination.

The most astonishing thing was studying the historic development of the chronology and scriptures on which it bases its fundamental teachings. These are the teachings (most of them, strangely enough, involve years and numbers -- 7, 607, 1914, 2520, 144,000) that Witnesses accept without demur as fact, yet they know nothing of their origin. While I was a Witness I certainly didn't. I didn't even think to examine or question them, because I was brainwashed into believing they had to be true, and there was therefore no need to probe how they came about.

Such concepts as Armageddon and the new system, the ban on blood transfusions, the faithful slave, and the absolute need for Christians to go door-to-door preaching the Kingdom before "the end" are similar: they didn't just happen, they were created. Witnesses (as I did) accepted those concepts as true and unchallengeable, again without considering the possibility that they were just constructions. By whom? Many of them by Rutherford, who was plainly a bullying, self-obsessed megalomaniac. Would such a man have been used by God -- particularly when he had defied the "governing body", or the "faithful slave" -- to assume the role of president and doctrine-maker?

All Witnesses make choices in joining the religion. I did too, but I made my choice on inadequate information. Today the internet, including Wikipedia, provides information that Witnesses in the 1980s had little access to. I note that your user page refers scornfully to information on the JW article, but it has gone through such a rigorous editing process (forced on it by Witnesses who have challenged much of the material) that I am confident it is all true and reliable. It's your choice to stay or go, but I hope you don't stay on the flimsy basis that men are imperfect.

Don't get me wrong: there are many good things about the JW religion. But there are also many bad things that degrade its members, making them lesser humans, mainly because they are robbed of choices, denied the use of their conscience, intimidated into the unquestioning obedience of an elite, unelected Governing Body who (as did David Koresh or Jim Jones) claim and truly believe they are being used by God. Koresh and Jones were imperfect men too. So sorry, I don't accept "imperfect men" as a reason to not judge a religion that is so cold, calculating, controlling and hypocritical. If you've reached the end of this, then congratulations. It's good to share views. BlackCab (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If I get to where you are then so be it. I realize that I'm too new to even make any semblance of an argument to something that you've obviously been mulling over for years. I don't know; let's just agree to disagree. At this point, I feel much happier than where I was before (as somebody who was wrapped up in the occult, I convinced myself that I knew all the answers, but had a nagging thought that I didn't). Let's make a deal. Let's pick up where we left off at this exact same point in 20 plus years. Or even 10 years. Deal? I realize that I am not qualified to even convince myself of what I know. I obviously don't know the finer points of being a Witness. On second thought, let me try.

• Let's take the blood. You say that this is a Pharisee like point, but it specifically states in the Greek scriptures that as Christians not to bend on this point.

• Going door-to-door. We are commanded in the Greek scriptures as well to spread the good news. Even the Christ did so.

• Rutherford. Hello... the light gets brighter and brighter? Ha ha ha!

• Conflicting viewpoints on the internet. The devil working overtime, because of the fact that he's furious.

• Years and numbers. This is a time based system (at least in terms of human perception), and this is a number based system as well (the harmony of numbers alone is breathtaking enough to convert anyone into believing in the majesty of creation).

Those are just a few things that I thought to bring up after glancing at what you wrote. But having lived at least 33 years, I am absolutely not gullible to the fact that when somebody has their mind made up, that's it! But I'm at least glad that you have remained being a sincere person, and not a bitter one like the large majority of people here on Wikipedia. If you left what I consider the truth, it at least seems to be for altruistic motives and not selfish ones, you know like people who were raised in the truth, and have now found life to be an endless party. But anyway, I very much enjoyed this discussion, and by all means enjoy to have my brain picked. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 07:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's just the point, Bryan: such doctrines as blood and compulsory door-to-door preaching are JW teachings based on their interpretation of the Bible. If they were bald biblical teachings, such as "Do not kill" or "Love your neighbour" then all churches would hold them. Neither was held by Russell. They were created. And they are very easily demolished. Jehovah's Witnesses are advised not to read criticism, however, so are never exposed to a contrary view; nor are they permitted to debate contrary views for fear of being branded dangerous apostates or "spiritually weak".

And another thing: that expression "the truth". It's a perfect example of the use of language to subtly reinforce a concept when used repeatedly by converts. New Witnesses quickly adopt its use in order to fit in. Only when one steps out of the movement does one realise what a loaded phrase it is, reminiscent of something from Maoist China, where slogans reigned supreme. I met JW friends recently who referred to me having "left the truth". Actually I left an organisation. It doesn't have the truth, so the term is now quite offensive to me. I resent it, I really bridle, when Witnesses use a phrase that implies that I still accept the "truth" of JW teachings, and that "The Truth" is an objective, acceptable title for, or description of, a set of quite unorthodox teachings. BlackCab (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But how can you say their interpretation of the Bible, when it is so clearly stated in the Bible. The 1st century Christians were confused about what part of the Mosaic law should be upheld, and the holy spirit moved (somebody, or somebodies; I can't remember, you obviously know what I'm talking about) to say that the blood should be honored, not bowing down to idols, among other things. Going door-to-door is clearly mentioned in the Bible. Are you just going to relax with your faith and be an armchair Christian? If Christendom doesn't accept something that is so clearly and explicitly stated in the Bible, then there has to be something funky going on. And using the term the truth, if I didn't feel that it was the truth then I wouldn't use the term. And as for me debating my viewpoint with you; my conscience makes me view it as a form of witnessing. I feel that I could count it down as one of my hours (though I'm not going to). When we get into debate at times when we're at the door, isn't that witnessing. It's not as if I feel prideful of what little knowledge I have. I literally feel that the holy spirit compelled me to talk to you, not debate you. If they told me that what I was doing with you right now was not productive, then I would have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to say that there aren't some really hard line Witnesses that would disagree. I'm actually close friends with one. I wouldn't even bring it up with him to be perfectly honest with you, because he would take it the wrong way. But that's imperfect man. I'm not going to judge the whole organization because of some partly misguided people. Lighthead ^þ 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Blood... At Acts 15:20, Paul said that Christians should "abstain ... from blood", based on the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law. The Bible doesn't discuss modern medical procedures, but there is another relevant principle in the Bible. At Matthew 12:10-11 Jesus was accused of healing on the Sabbath, though working on the Sabbath was considered a serious sin, worthy of death (compare Numbers 15:32-35). Jesus replied that a person would save their sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath. Jesus indicated that saving a life is more important than strict observance to a rule; for a similar reason, practising Jews also accept blood transfusions.

Door to door... Various translations use the phrase "house to house" at Acts 5:41 and 20:20 (from the single Greek word οἶκος); in these verses the literal rendering from the original Greek is "the houses". The same word is usually translated in other verses as "house" or "household". Specifically, the custom was for people who were already believers to meet together in each other's houses—kind of like a Bible study group. At Luke 10:7, Jesus said that his disciples "should not be transferring from house to house" (from three separate Greek words οἰκία εἰς οἰκία, literally "house to house"). At best, the 'requirement' for door-to-door preaching is an interpretation.

Years and numbers... The most important date in JW chronology is 607 BCE, which they assign to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (which actually happened in 587 BCE). The selection of 1914 is inextricably linked to the selection of 607. JW literature says that 607 BCE was 70 years before the Jews were released from Babylon. However, Jeremiah 25:12 specifically indicates that "when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon"; that event is described in the Bible at Daniel 5:26-31 2:26-31, and is known to have occurred in 539 BCE. If Jeremiah 25:12 is to be considered accurate, the 70 years could not end another two years after Babylon's king was called to account. Additionally, Jeremiah 25:8-11 states that the 70 years was a period during which all the surrounding nations would serve Babylon, rather than a period of Jewish exile.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

-- From the Bible Teach book.

As to the rendering of house to house or the houses. I know from what little experience that I have that Greek renderings of statements depend on other words as modifiers. So it would depend on the other words in the sentence.

If you don't believe me, just do more research. Start with something such as the JW's Interlinear of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Another good resources is Strong's Bible Concordance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I can think of one instance where Strong's Exhaustive Concordance bases their rationale on an error. Look up Isaiah 14:12 there, they base their interpretation on a typo, an early one perhaps, but a typo nonetheless. Now, the Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures. Am I supposed to look up different instances of that same word? Because I know for a fact that Ancient Greek didn't use stand alone words. They were in many instances modified by other ones. Lighthead ^þ 22:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems your argument here is, 'it's all too hard to verify, so you must be wrong'. And at the same time, your argument is, 'it's all too hard to verify, so my beliefs must be right.' I have verified. If you don't want to, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate what I've already found to be true.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the fall of Babylon. You have your verses mixed up. There is no 31st verse of chapter 5, and that general selection doesn't mention anything about years; therefore I'm assuming that you're talking about something that some confused archaeologist is stating? Archaeologists previously thought that the bible account concerning Cyrus the Great was wrong, but they were proven wrong by future archaeological evidence. So, anything that an archaeologist says shouldn't be too obsessed over, that is unless they have clear physical evidence. Lighthead ^þ 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"5" was a typo. The typo does not affect the import of the facts I stated. The correct reference is Daniel 2:26-31. Sorry for any confusion. Regarding the other points, regardless of whether you think that the JW interpretations could be right, the fact remains that the scriptures JWs use for those matters are definitely not concrete, and the JW doctrines based on them are matters of interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that there is much archeological evidence against 607, I have not mentioned any of it. (Claiming that an argument you disagree with 'must be from some confused archaeologist' is called an ad hominem attack.) I have only mentioned an unambiguous statement at Jeremiah 25:12 which states an order of events that makes it impossible for the 70 years to end beyond 539 BCE, the date accepted by JWs for Babylon's fall. You might also like to check Isaiah's Prophecy—Light for all Mankind, volume 1, page 253, paragraph 21 regarding '70 years for Tyre'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's an ad hominem attack or not; that kind of thing does happen. So therefore you have to allow for that as a possibility. Bear in mind, I'm not saying that that kind of thing did happen; I'm just saying it's possible. As for an argument based on math, please don't bother; I'm horrible at math. See my user page. It'll take me 70 years to figure it out... ha ha ha! If you can explain it to me in layman's terms please try (operative word; try). Lighthead ^þ 22:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I understand now. That is an obvious error of the organization (or at least of a publication). But I've worked around that; Phoenicia becoming a satrapy of the Medo-Persian Empire in 539 B.C.E. before the fall of Babylon doesn't make any difference. Because: drumroll... Phoenicia was not part of the Babylonian Empire! Therefore whether Phoenicia fell in 539 B.C.E. doesn't make a difference, because that's Phoenicia, not Babylon. But that must be a typo, or something. Or it may be something the Organization may have to clear up. Note: Serving Babylon is just a way to say that Jerusalem was under Babylon. You're mincing words. Lighthead ^þ 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also the chronology is perfectly there in the composite book of Kings. As well as composite Chronicles. Composite book of Jeffro77; that might be a different story. Lighthead ^þ 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to my last response: Isaiah 23:15 only says that Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years. It doesn't equate its fall with the fall of Babylon. Note: it also says in that same verse, "Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the day of one king." It doesn't say that this king is Nebuchadnezzar. It may simply refer to a king as a general statement; and not necessarily to anyone in particular. That's it. I'm done. That was the last end I wanted to tie up. No more debates. By the way, you might have the reference back there wrong too. That verse is to the immense image in Daniel. You're evidently referring to the dream in Daniel 4:20-25. As I mentioned though, the chronology has perfectly been set up in the books of Kings and Chronicles. But that's it; I'm not debating anymore. This wasn't even supposed to be a debate. Last note: The WTS publications do not contradict the first two statements in this paragraph (Addendum, and Note). Lighthead ^þ 06:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not mention any archaeological evidence, so, no, it is not a possibility in the context of this discussion that 'some archaeologist was confused'. The only thing I mentioned that is at all related to archaeology is the JW-accepted date of 539 for the fall of Babylon (and the JW interpretation of the 70 years fails if any other year is selected for the fall of Babylon anyway). The 'math' is as simple as it gets - "when seventy years have been fulfilled", then Babylon's king would be called to account, as is unambiguously stated at Jeremish 25:12. It's a simple and directly stated order of events, based more on vocabulary than math. Phoenicia is entirely incidental to Babylon or its destruction; the information about Tyre is merely supplementary as it also references a period of 70 years ending in 539 BCE. The fact is that Babylon was captured in 539 BCE, and its king was then killed, and Daniel 2:26-31 explicitly states that he was then called to account. I have in fact considered the books of Kings and Chronicles in depth, and determined that the accounts are in fact not compatible with a Jewish exile beginning in 607 BCE. Much more information is available upon request. I've given you some facts. What you choose to do with them is entirely up to you. (Also, I did not refer to Daniel 4:20-25, and nor did I intend to. I have already stated that the 5 was a typo, and the intended passage was Daniel 2:26-31.) --Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry BlackCab for taking over this conversation here. As this page should not be used as a forum, I will not continue it further here. Lighthead is welcome to e-mail me using Wikipedia's built in e-mail function if he would like any further information about these matters or any other questions related to JW belief. (In the event of any threatening or abusive e-mails from any editor via Wikipedia's e-mail function, I reserve the right to provide any such e-mails in part or in full at a Wikipedia ANI.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually sorry too BlackCab. This is absolutely derailed. Off the tracks. And on its side. Lighthead ^þ 14:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A prohibition on blood transfusions is actually not “clearly stated in the Bible”. It is a doctrine created by Jehovah’s Witnesses (and Jehovah’s Witnesses alone) based on what is a pretty far-fetched interpretation of two Bible scriptures that has been described as “absurd literalism”. The two scriptures are:

• Leviticus 17, which covers the Mosaic Law that prohibited Jews from eating blood. That chapter deals solely with food, and is clearly discussing the need to bleed animals before eating them. Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law: if they were, they would still be stoning lawbreakers, quarantining menstruating women, and not eating bacon.

That's a ridiculous argument, those aspects of the law have been done away with. Lighthead ^þ 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Acts 15, which reports on the Council of Jerusalem about 50AD. The article at Council of Jerusalem discusses the range of views held by theologians about that council and whether its decisions were perpetually binding on Christians or a pragmatic temporary solution to overcome objections by Jews who had newly converted to Christianity.

Why would it be recorded if it was temporary? Lighthead ^þ 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In either case it then becomes a question of whether a ban on eating unbled meat can be applied to a medical procedure that scientists describe as something similar to an organ transplant. The information at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions#Critical views contains the principal objections to the Watchtower doctrine: the error in their argument in Reasoning From the Scriptures (p. 73) that blood is taken as nourishment and therefore comparable to an alcoholic having an alcohol infusion; and the lack of logic in a symbol of life (blood) being more important than the life itself.

That argument entirely misses the point. It's taking the analogy too literally. It is simply an analogy. Lighthead ^þ 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If Jehovah deemed that a certain species of frog were more important than life itself than I would heed his command; he is only (I believe) the reason we exist. Lighthead ^þ 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the problem right there, Bryan. It wasn't Jehovah who "deemed" that blood, as a symbol of life, was more important than life (in fact he showed it wasn't!); it was the Governing Body. If they decided that a species of frog was more valuable than life, of course you'd do it. Because their literature everywhere contains the subtle indoctrination that what they say is what God says. Many have seen through this and left this religion for that reason. BlackCab (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In the end it comes to this: Witnesses refuse blood – and are prepared to die as a result – because they are ordered to. If the Governing Body decided next month that it was OK, their scriptural objections would evaporate instantly. Witnesses are not permitted to question or disobey the teachings of the Governing Body.

I see no evidence in the Bible that Jesus went door to door. The WTS directive to members is based on Acts 5:42 (which writes about the apostles) and Acts 20 (which refers to what Paul did, not what he ordered Christians to do). Christians throughout the centuries have preached, which is why there are so many of them in the world today, so the "command" at Matthew 24 can reasonably be said to have been fulfilled. There is certainly no biblical requirement to preach to gain salvation, nor to submit forms recording hours spent preaching; nor any logic in filling monthly quotas of hours by calling at empty homes during daylight hours. Observing Witnesses in "field service" (and from my own long experience) there is little enthusiasm in this task, most of it is done as a perfunctory service in order not to be adversely judged by the organisation. Again, if the Governing Body decided next month preaching was no longer required, or field service reports were no longer required, how many would do it? How much of this religion's activity is simply following the directives of a faceless group of men? BlackCab (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been fulfilled of course, but with apostasy. And recording hours is merely symbolic; if my mom could only do one hour a month for health reasons that would be well understood. Calling at empty homes; same logic, we do what we can.

That said, I'm going to end this debate, because that is obviously what it has turned into. It's not that I can't hold my own in a debate, it's just that I see how entirely fruitless it can be, when somebody is convinced so entirely beyond any reasonable argument or evidence. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

B.T.W.: I have not answered arguments that seem to have been based on bitterness of opinion, and therefore are equally not valid as arguments. Have a good day. Lighthead ^þ 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I do appreciate it. I agree there's no point in getting into an argument. I am just pointing a few things out to you based on logic; you respond with defences of Watchtower Society teachings. But hey, that's your choice, it's your life. I do find it intriguing to present these points to a Witness and hear a response. In all my time in the religion I was never challenged in that way, so I'm intrigued about what I would have said. Probably the same as you! The sad fact is that the Watchtower Society has all the hallmarks of a religious cult, as described here, but as I said, that's your choice. All the best. BlackCab (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion has always been a matter of faith, but from about the late 3rd century onward Christianity has been dominated by credulity and blind obedience to authority. "Do not question us for we speak on behalf of God." This happened with the Roman Catholic Church, and it has happened with many of the Protestant churches. The JWs and the Mormons are two groups that could fit into the definition of "Restorationists" who have also fallen into the same trap. Russell made a perceptive statement when saying that "The DAWN and TOWER would have many more friends and believers if they followed this, popery's course, for as some one has said people prefer to be humbugged." It's true. Religions that resort to the wild and fanciful (inspired prophecy; visions from God; materializing angels; infallible teachers; God's official mouthpiece, etc...) will frequently gain many more followers than those religions and faiths which rely upon or to any extent utilize reason, science and logic. Russell fought against organized religion and insisted that a Christian is supposed to have liberty to disagree, and that one should feel free to worship God anywhere without ties. Today? He would be disfellowshipped from his own Society. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

JWs Mental Health book

You can purchase it from a ministry called Witness, Inc. They are a very rabidly anti-JW ministry and have produced some really scurrilous material in the past, very slanderous, but it is the only source for many of the best reference works. The link is http://www.witnessinc.com/ordering_materials.html#Reproduct and when you get to the page just hit CTRL + F and search for #787 Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Illness (not sure which title is correct "health" or "illness"). Pastorrussell (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. BlackCab (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sand Pebbles / The Sand Pebbles

Hi there; just curious to understand your rationale that the name of the band is Sand Pebbles. I have three of their albums and on each the band is called labelled The Sand Pebbles. Additionally, every external reference listed in the article appears to use "the" to preface the name of the band - I can't find one reference that omits "the". So I'm struggling to support the name change! Have also noted this on the article talk page. Cheers Murtoa (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NWT

Please see current moronic edit dispute at New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

How should I phrase my edit? You must know that what I said was correct, and it followed on from a related statement. The rebuttal was already incorrectly placed in relation to another matter, if I'm taking your meaning correctly. 86.30.37.126 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept of shunning as a result of disagreeing with JW doctrines is already represented in the article. It isn't really necessary to reiterate it inside a paragraph that constitutes the JW rebuttal about description of the group as a cult.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

With your edit, the paragraph began: "Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult[157] and say that although individuals need proper guidance from God, they should do their own thinking.[158][159] It should be noted what while they are free to think, if they reach any conclusions are out of line with teachings, they will be pushed back into line or forcibly ostracised from the organisation (see Shunning)"

The use of the phrase "it should be noted" is unencyclopedic because it pushes a point of view that is designed to imply the rebuttal to that point by th WTS is wrong. That's not the role of an encyclopedia. There is also no need to add the words (see Shunning) after it. But I'm more bothered by the words in between. I can't find the entire paper by Ronald Lawson to work out if that his his explicit claim (and therefore something that can be included) or an interpretation and argumentation by you (which can't be included). I'm a bit doubtful that Lawson, in an academic paper, would use the phrase "pushed back into line", which makes me a little more sceptical about the worth of your edit. If you have a link to the entire article, would you be able to post it here? I'd be interested in reading it.

Having said that, you're right that what you've written is basically correct. They are a high-control religion that does not tolerate independent thought. But anything on this article has to be properly sourced and carefully written. But that's already alluded to in the section above that, "Authoritarianism and denial of free speech". BlackCab (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What bothered me was the apparent appearance that witnesses are free to reach their own conclusions on doctrine... it is true that they can 'think', but they aren't allowed to conclude. The paraphrasing was my own, and possibly incorrect, but I feel the point needs to be made in as many words to avoid giving the wrong impression to the reader. I can dig up more material on this if it'd be needed to allow my edits to remain?

Speaking of which, it may help your editing of this article to have a copy of the elder's manual for congregation management? It's fairly explicit on their internal procedures, even if tactfully worded, about how things are actually run versus how they publicly purport them to be. If so let me know and I'll upload it somewhere.86.30.37.126 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Shepherding the Flock book, I have it. It is already cited as a source for some statements on Wikipedia articles. Feel free to open a Wikipedia account, give yourself a name and contribute. Again, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to dismiss the rebuttals in an article such as this. We just give the information and let people draw their own conclusion. BlackCab (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an account, but for personal reasons I'm not using it in this case. To me, the so-called rebuttal is deeply misleading, as what it claims to be rebutting, is the assertion that witnesses aren't free to reach their own conclusions on doctrinal matters, which is not what the rebuttal actually denies, as freedom to literally 'think' isn't the same thing at all. I'm not especially fluent in wiki etiquette, so probably can't express my point the way in which one is meant to, but that's my interpretation of the matter. Essentially I'd be much happier if there were some clarification in the meaning of what they're actually saying vs what they appear to be. If a specific citation is needed to enable the article to point that out then I'm fine with rummaging around for one.86.30.37.126 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the WTS rebuttal about the freedom to think should be in the section above that one, responding to the claim by the Bottings and others that Witnesses "are told what they should feel and think" and are afraid to speak out if they have views that dissent from official Watchtower teaching. The section on "Description as a cult" doesn't contain the explicit accusation that Witnesses are told what to think, which is what those two Watchtower articles are being used to rebut. I may adjust those sentences. The article need not go into every complaint about the way the JWs operate, however in fairness the article should contain a rebuttal if such is available. As I've said, it's up to the reader to determine whether the rebuttal (or, indeed, the accusation) is true or not. If you locate any further sources that meet Wikipedia requirements for inclusion (see WP:RS an WP:V) please add them, or, if unsure, raise them on the article talk page and someone else will do it for you. BlackCab (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Jehova Witness article

You're opinion on jehova's witness is obviously biased my friend wether you try your best not to. Simply because you left the organization, i doubt it can be helped.

I am a student myself right now as far as i know is all about the bibble, at least the translation they have, and the doctrines IF EVER GIVEN BY "SOME ELDERS" is well referenced in their bibble. So they follow their bibble more than the elders unlike catholics, which is what we discuss most of the time and criticize. You may ask how is different if the bibble is manipulated? It is very different, at least for me : ) .

There's no way jehova's witness would be editing in this article (the only reason im here is because im not fullly committed to it or not a jehova witness officially yet), they don't have it forbidden but it is highly recommended for our own good not to start quarrels online over religion which makes sense as it leads to nowhere and there's more opposition than there's allies in these cases. As you may have noticed yourself, you have been wasting (or you will realize later) a LOT of time, in the internet with discussions than the time you unfortunately : ( think you wasted in this religion.

You may argue I'm being mind controled yada yada yada, im a simple person but not that simple despite holding a phd in physics it seemed to me the most logical religion (as far as know of it) to follow out of all of them. I can also feel the environment they live in and all the atmosphere around it : ) .

The only thing im against is the blood transfusion but then again im not going to throw all the good things just because of that.

You may argue many things, but I am damned happy to be here so far.

It was a big mistake for me to write on that article and I apologize, although what I wrote is true I just felt mad all the negative things/lies/exaggerations said about this religion.

Anyways, i really wish you good luck, and I recommend you not to spent your life online. i doubt i will read any reply if there's any, i am wasting definitely a lot of time here.

here's my signature: GOOD LUCK my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.4.240 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that someone who holds a PhD can't spell a word such as Bible, or even be able to spell the name of the religion they're aligning themselves to. You are wrong about JWs editing the article: they have had a very strong presence here, often trying to remove criticism of their religion and attemping to put their own spin on it, but sometimes adding valuable information that aids an understanding of the subject. In the end, however, most give up. I think many Witnesses are unused to seeing critical comment on their religion and take offence at it. The Watch Tower Society provides them only with flattering comments about their religion and ignores the many criticisms levelled at them by academics and others.

The information here must be based on reliable published sources and be presented in an editorially neutral way -- that is, without bias. In the end, I think, the article is fair, balanced and accurate. The source material is of a high standard and used fairly. I'm interested in hearing what parts of the article you believe are "negative things/lies/exaggerations".

I don't see my work here as a waste of time: quite the contrary. I joined the religion knowing only what the WTS told me. Much of that turned out to be lies. I think if I can try to share broader information about it with those who are interested in it, it's worthwhile. BlackCab (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Kindly stop using rude and bullying language in your editorial comments towards me

I feel that with no reason, your comments to me on the editorial pages are rude and are against the Wikipedia policy of politeness. Also, I feel that your comments are bullying. I don't know what formal complaints to Wikipedia can be made with this, but this is an ongoing issue. In school we have bullying issues sometimes, and I feel that is how you are going about editing with those who disagree with your viewpoint, which is not balanced. Natural (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

I am being direct with you, Scott, because you seem unable to comprehend my points. I have no idea what "bullying" language you accuse me of. There are avenues to complain if you wish, but I think you need to stop being so thin-skinned. BlackCab (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

174.51.189.153

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bible Chronology

Obviously, you guys have yourselves a nice little group of anti-Jehovah's witnesses going here, You, by your own page are clearly an apostate, so I realize there will be no reasoning with your closed mind. I haven't violated Wikipedia's rules...YET. But your friends have and by your involvement with them, you are continuing the process. The dates and the chart submitted can be supported by reference material, which I provided, and by the bible, which the page declares itself to be a chronology of. What your friends keep reverting to cannot be supported by a single thing other than fictitious source material that is improperly and/or incorrectly sited. I have offered to discuss this page in talk, none of your friends have taken me up on this offer, they simply revert to poor, incomplete and inaccurate information, which I am surprised to learn that Wikipedia prefers over a complete and accurate Chronology of the bible. But then, why should I be surprised that people would prefer to "adopt teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled"

74.232.63.35 (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What normal person refers to another as an apostate? Your language and assumption that I have a closed mind (on the basis that I left your religion) speak far more about your own mental entrapment.

Stop making personal attacks and stick to facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that works on the basis of collaboration and consensus. Repeatedly reverting others' edits because you disagree with them is contrary to the way this site works, which is why I warned you that you are close to breaching a rule that will see your editing privileges blocked. Also please consider creating a Wikipedia account. When you edit with multiple IP addresses, it makes it unclear who other editors are dealing with, and creates barriers to communication. BlackCab (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just some suggested reading material for you (Heb. 10:26-31), Whether you consider me a normal person or not is irrelevant, and as I stated, its you and your friends who are violating the rules. You've formed a small group of Anti-Jehovah's Witnesses and are systematically deleting any input that you deem to have come from that organization, using your numbers to repeatedly revert pages until the person gives up trying to convey accurate information. You, along with your little club, are more concerned with your opinion and your agenda than with accuracy of information. It's a shame you guys are that way, but it is what it is. Report me, lets take it up a couple of levels of management, and see if Wikipedia approves of you little social club. 72.152.65.104 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the Bible passage you mentioned, but I don;t see that it has a great deal of relevance to me or Wikipedia. I left a religion because, as even The Watchtower has urged its readers to do, I examined it and found it to be riddled with falsities, absurdities and unchristian methods of control and intimidation. My belief in God remains untouched. But thanks for your concern.

I'm not sure I have "friends" at Wikipedia. My "agenda" is to provide accurate, verifiable information, primarily on a religion that chooses to withhold information from members and the public. As I explained at my userpage, I joined a religion knowing little about it. Wikipedia articles may help others to make an informed decision. BlackCab (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI

I have lodged a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spudpicker_01.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by an editor. Thank you. Calabe1992 04:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)