From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:32:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.184137.12369@e2big.mko.dec.com> news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul22.001419.12399@sdf.lonestar.org>, corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes...
>>Well, I want to thank everyone for the references to the publishing
>>house that has books on the JW's.  For now, here's something interesting
>>to look at.
>> 
>>I don't care if this breaks all the rules of Internet etiquette.  This
>>must be posted to show what the JW's do when they encounter arguments
>>they cannot rebutt.  According to Andrea, I am an 'apostate', apparently
>>because I had the "truth" and I rejected it.  
>
>        You are right that what you've done breaks all the rules of net
>    etiquette.  I suppose you feel that the ends justify the means, but
>    posting private mail without permission is still a dishonorable
>    activity, regardless of your reason.
>
>        Additionally, I think that you've over-generalized "what the
>    Jehovah's Witnesses do" on the basis of what Andreas wrote to you (and
>    others).
>
>        I understand why Andreas wrote what he did, and he's probably right
>    that with your current attitude, many, if not all Witnesses on the net
>    probably won't have much, if anything, to say to you; but you have to
>    admit that up to this point there HAVE been at least a few Witnesses
>    who've been willing to talk to you (in public and perhaps in private as
>    well), perhaps because they felt that they might regain you back as a
>    spiritual brother [since by your own admission, you haven't been
>    'kicked out' yet, and you evidently haven't had the nerve to formally
>    submit a written resignation of your own, which would save the elders
>    in your congregation the anguish of having to disfellowship you,
>    assuming, that is, that you really *want* to be disfellowshipped].
>

Yeh....I guesso.  But in my experience, this is the way most, if not
all, Witnesses react to things that counter their world view.  When
I lived at home, for instance, and was watchint Oprah, they had some
people on there talking about the Jehovah's Witnesses.  She made me
turn it off.  Even at that tender age (15), I had a skeptical mind.
I wondered :

"If this religion is the Truth [tm.] then it should be able to stand
up to *any* argument.  But they are deliberately hiding something
from me.  What could it be?  What are they trying to *hide* from me??!?"

I propose that most, not all, Witnesses are closed-minded when it
comes to differing viewpoints.  Although I have met perhaps ONE on the
Internet who was willing to discuss evolution/creation reasonably.  He
even admitted his own mistakes in his faulty logic.  Most ICR (Institute
for Creation Research) types won't even acknowledge their mistakes.
At least this Witness did (Christopher Peters).  Unfortunately, he
doesn't post often, he being busy with his religion and family.  Quite
admirable.  But an unusual example.



f
>        I received Andreas' mail; but the truth is that he only can speak
>    for himself as a matter of fact, and that he can only generalize on
>    what other Witnesses may or may not do.  His word is not a command that
>    everyone else stop talking to you -- especially at this point in time.
>
>        The dictionary I have handy defines apostacy as:
>
>                "renunciation of one's religion, principles,
>                political party, etc."
>
>    Regardless of the fact that Andreas as labelled you as an apostate, I'd
>    say, after having read a few of your postings, that you've made it
>    pretty clear that you've done precisely what an apostate does, namely
>    you've renounced your religion, and have done so publicly, at least
>    as far as the net is concerned.
>

So by your definition, I am an apostate.  But what does that prove?  So?
Call me an apostate.  I am not associating myself with those crazy
people who carry signs at JW conventions, though.  And I'm not going to pass
out "I was a Watchtower Slave" or whatever that apostate literature was. 
However, there are other independent sources that criticize the Witnesses.


>        Whether you (or anyone else) is considered an apostate by us has
>    nothing to do with whether we can or cannot rebutt your arguments; it
>    has to do with your own attitude and publicly evident actions and
>    words.  If you, by your own words, make it clear that you renounce and
>    now decry the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, you can hardly expect
>    anyone who IS a Witness to want to hear what you have to say from now
>    on, can you?  You may have been raised as a Witness, and thus feel that

Why should they not listen to me?  I listen to the rantings and ravings
of creationists and religionists, to see if they have anything good to
say.  Usually, they don't, in my short experience.  However, just because
they believe in something I don't (creation, religion), I don't censor
myself from reading their postings.  I'm not afraid to read ANYTHING.
What about you?  I have nothing to hide.  What about you?


>    you have need to be free of the beliefs [and organizational structure]
>    that are all you've known up to this point in your life (as though
>    you've been greatly harmed by those beliefs); but don't forget that
>    most Witnesses are people who have made the conscientious decision to
>    join this religion as one-time outsiders -- and thus are glad to be
>    Witnesses as a matter of choice (rather than upbringing).
>

Yeh.  Well, appealing to those cases does not strengthen your argument
any.  In my experience (from Field Service, which I have actively participated
in, once auxilliary pioneering for a month :), the only people that listen
to Witnesses are ignorant, lay, unskeptical people that would just as easily
be taken in by the likes of Robert Tilton.  And the people who have serious
problems in life that they can't handle.  I, however, can now rely on myself,
albeit it is hard (having convinced myself that I could do nothing without
Jehovah) so I don't feel the need to rely on superstitions or myths or
mystic 'supreme beings' to magically solve my problems for me.

There are many people who did NOT choose to be Witnesses that came from
the world.  Your argument proves nothing.



>> 
>>-------------------------------[email begins here]--------------------------
>> 
>>Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
>>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
>>References: <1992Jul2.937.22513@dosgate> <+h-m7d.gordons@netcom.com> <ncgi5ik@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Jul18.223028.7541@sdf.lonestar.org>
>>Status: RO
>> 
>>In talk.religion.misc you write:
>>>Well, believe it or not, I'm a recent person who is freeing themself
>>>from the Jehovah's Witnesses.  If you read alt.atheism, you know who
>>>I am.  After reading talk.origins for a while, I discovered the
>>>bad scholarship in their book _Life_.
>>>is a demonic theory.  That's why I moved out of the house, and one reason
>>>for leaving the JW religion.
>> 
>>	I got the impression that you are an apostate. You know, how we will
>>	treat apostates, so it's needless for you to try to talk with us, 
>>	everything you say will be ignored. I've told this to the other 
>>	friends, too. 
>> 
>>				Andreas
>> 
>> 
>>------------------------------[end e-mail]----------------------------------
>> 
>>Well, that just about sums up the Witnesses for you right there.  
>
>        No, Corey ... that sums up Andreas alone; or perhaps only provides
>    the basis which *you* consider valid for summing up all Witnesses.  
>    Andreas is reminding you of a truth which you are already aware of,
>    that we don't waste our time arguing with people who apostasize from
>    our faith; but you clearly are ignoring (perhaps because it's
>    convenient) the fact that we'd MUCH rather see you remain our spiritual
>    brother, so that you live forever in God's 'new system' as a fellow
>    servant of Jehovah.  We'd MUCH rather that you make yourself our
>    spiritual friend, rather than declare yourself our spiritual enemy.
>

Yes, I am well aware of your want to save me.  Look, if I'm wrong, I die
at Armaggedon, and according to the Witnesses (one thing I like about them),
I don't have to be tormented in hell forever.  I just won't exist.  In 
the meantime, I'm going to make the most of my present existence, and
not fret about afterlife or eternal life or other such fantasies.  I have
too much to do without having to worry about Bible study.

Besides, even as a young child, I would think about living forever.
It made me *DEATHLY* afraid.  Just what would you do when you live
forever?  I'd get bored in a billion years, at least.  I have such
a hard time in life right NOW just getting up out of bed, dressing
myself, taking a shower, going to work, getting / fixing food, 
sleeping, shaving, etc, etc, etc.  Now tell me that you won't get
tired of these things after a billion times.  I certainly would.
I think a few hundred years would be nice, but a billion?  Never...

Here's something for you to think about, Mark.  Since you will live
forever, everything can and WILL happen, according to probability.
Just think.  *YOU* will live to see man SPONTANEOUSLY arise from
an organic soup!  *YOU* will see a statue move its hand! (all molecules
move in the same direction one way, then back again.  Although the
chances of this happening are VERY small, it would happen in an
eternity.)  You will see a Boeing 747 assembled from a junkpile, because,
while the chances of this happening are absurd, with an eternity to
work with, it will eventually happen.  It follows from the laws of
probability.....



>        Perhaps instead you should consider the evidence pertaining to
>    yourself that YOU are providing Witnesses on the net and at your home
>    for summing YOU up.
>

I don't understand what you mean....are you saying that I haven't posted
anything worth reading?  Just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo?  Or are you 
attacking my motives?  Or my character?  Don't worry, I have plenty of
stuff coming up to post that is worth reading.


>        You say that you've made your decision about Jehovah's Witnesses on
>    the basis of what you've read in talk.origins, but tell me this: did
>    you independently analyze the quotes and their context *ON YOUR OWN* to
>    see if the critical analysis was *really* accurate; or did you just
>    accept what the critics said because you have been looking for a reason
>    to quit being a Witness anyway?  The reason I ask is that over the
>    years I've researched on my own -- to the best of my ability -- 
>    many claims of alleged falsification by the Watchtower Society, and
>    every critical claim that I've been able to check out has proved false
>    (in my estimation).  Can you honestly say that you've at least done the
>    same thing, and given the faith you were raised in a fair defense, or
>    are you content with a mere one-sided approach to the issues (because
>    you are already predisposed to agree with the critical side)?
>

First of all, no, I haven't looked up every single last reference in 
the _Life : How?_ book, but I am getting to it.  Second, I have thought
about this as objectively as I could, free from bias.  I have been
thinking about this for months, and I came to the conclusion that
the Watchtower Society DOES tend to misquote things in their publications.

Yes, I have given the faith I have been raised in a fair defense.  Perhaps
I am a little overzealous in my crusade against religion and the Witnesses,
but it is just a natural phase of my life that I am going through (being 20).
I'll probably mellow out in a few years, but for now, this is my fuckin'
HEYDAY!!!

At first, I wasn't predisposed to agree with the critical side.  Believe
me, I *WANTED* to be a Witness!  I *WANTED* my doubts and questions to
be resolved!  But I have tried my best, and it seems useless.  I *WANTED*
to believe in creation, because I thought evolution would destroy my
morals (which it hasn't.  I consider myself to be a very moral person).
I *WANTED* to believe in Jehovah, because I thought I couldn't survive
without him.  But I have.  And I can.  And I will.


>>                                                                  I find
>>it interesting that they make such a big deal about being open-minded in
>>the field service, (that is, the people they preach to must be open-minded).
>
>        If you were truly so open-minded yourself, you'd have taken the
>    time to investigate whether the critical arguments could be countered
>    with reasonable and truthful explanations.  Have you done so, or do you
>    believe, as apparently many others do, that accepting a one-sided
>    critical case is the most open-minded way to judge Jehovah's Witnesses?
>    Why are you so willing to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are lying to
>    you, but don't even entertain the thought that it *could* be the
>    critics who are lying [or are at least misinformed or misguided]?
>

Hmm.....Yes, I have heard some of the Witness "explanations" with regards
to their horrible and blatant misquotings.  I'll send you an email file
of misquotes from the _Life_ book, and you will have to give me an
"explanation" for each one.  Because there's so many of them.  So don't
say I'm not open-minded.  I am.  I'm giving you the opportunity to
convert me right now.  

Your questions prove nothing.  I can say the exact same thing to you:
Why are you so willing to believe that the critics of Jehovah's Witnesses
are lying to you, but don't even entertain the thought that it *could*
be the Jehovah's Witnesses who are lying to you?

I haven't heard any good "explanations".  Just metaphysical bullshit
and handwaving.


>>However, they turn right around and censor all opposing viewpoints.  That's
>>just real grand.  I guess I'll be in Andrea's kill file.  Haha.  Oh well.
>
>        Neither Andreas nor anyone else is censoring you and your opposing
>    views (or anyone else's opposing views, for that matter).  That you can
>    freely post your views to your heart's content is proof of that. 
>    Andreas has chosen to censor what he himself reads, and has (for better
>    or for worse) chosen to tell you that he will be censoring your
>    postings from his own 'in basket'.  But, again, he isn't censoring you,
>    and neither is he censoring me.  If I, or any other Witness, choose to
>    'kill' your postings as he does, that only affects what we as
>    individuals choose to read -- and thus is self-censorship.  But you
>    hardly come off the martyr for it.  Really, I wonder why this bothers
>    you, for surely it's your intention to break free of Jehovah's
>    Witnesses, right?  If we decide not to talk to you about our religion,
>    doesn't that just keep us 'out of your hair,' and thus contribute to
>    the freedom from our religion that you are seeking?
>
>                                                                -mark.

Well, I hope you don't put me in your killfile.  I hope you aren't that
afraid of your beliefs, as I once was, when I first started reading talk
origins, and was afraid my Dad would catch me reading about evolution,
the demonic theory started by Satan.  I was just like you.  


As to my disassociation from the congregation, I am planning such a thing.
I am going to be working on a letter, called "Why I am not a Jehovah's
Witness."  I will probably email it to you  and all the other Witnesses
on here, post it publicly to talk.religion.misc and alt.atheism, and even
send paper copies to a few key elders and Witness friends.  However,
right now, I am having to support myself and go to work to live on my
own.  My intellectual freedom has cost me a great deal financially, but
it is worth it.  I don't have a nice car, the latest faddish clothes,
or the latest records, but I *DO* have my computer, access to the 
Usenet through our local free public access Unix system, my books,
my skateboard, and my guitar.  

Here are a few reasons I think the Witnesses are not for me, for a
preview of my little essay.

1)  I masturbate.  I love to masturbate occasionally.  It is a wonderful
release for my sexual and emotional frustrations.  It keeps me from 
going out and raping innocent women.  However, the Witnesses would have
me believe that this is a "sin".  As a small child, I had serious
emotional and social problems.  I was afraid of everyone, the only
person I trusted being my mother.  Yet my mother caught me masturbating
and told me it was "bad" and that I should be "ashamed of myself".  This,
in my opinion, is created insanity.

2)  I find the Bible to be nauseating, boring, repetitive, contradictory,
disgusting, two-faced, explicitly violent, homophobic, misogynic, and
erotophobic (treating sex as something "dirty"), and insane.

Some of my favorite Bible stories:  (don't know the verses, don't 
really care to, either.  I know what they say.)

The one where God strikes down Uzzah with lightning for touching the
ark of the covenant.  What a 'merciful, loving God'.

The one where God sends the bears out to kill the little children
who call Elijah baldhead (granted, not a nice thing to say to an
older man, but it doesn't deserve capital punishment).

The law in Leviticus (I think) stating that if a woman commits
adultery and doesn't confess, God will make her vagina rot and fall
off.

The Noachian flood.  What a way to solve a problem.  Genocide works,
but I don't think it is a very moral way to do things.  Besides,
what about all of the innocent babies who were killed at the time?
They had no opportunity whatsoever to prove to God that they were
faithful, but they were killed because of their parent's sins.

The theory that since Adam and Eve sinned, the rest of their descendants
must die.  I don't think this is very fair.  I didn't ask to be born
or created, yet God is going to hold *ME* accountable for something
some mythical couple did centuries ago?  I know you would say that
I have the opportunity to come back to God, but I still find the
concept of 'original sin' disgusting and vile.  How could any innocent
baby be called a 'sinner' from birth?  

The whole Israelite affair when they went into Caanan.  Here are all
these people, with ways of life and religion established over a long
period of time, and these Israelites come in, and tell them, "Worship
the TRUE God, Jehovah, or be destroyed!"  How insane!  This is some
real "solution" to a problem.  Yeah, right.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, especially when those two goddamn
angels visit Lot or whoever, and Lot gives his two daughters up
to the men to be gang-raped.  Then he finds out that these people
were angels all the time and could have easily defended themselves.
I think this is TRUE OBSCENITY.  If it is a true story, and if God
exists, then we have a cruel, sociopathic, psychotic God for a father.
Wonderful.

The degradation of women in the Bible.  In Leviticus or somewherebouts,
they are told not to desire their fellow man's property, clothing, wife,
horse, asses, land, or anything else of his.  Notice that woman is
categorized as a posession, along with livestock.  Paul also says
that women should learn, and not teach, wear headcoverings when teaching,
and that woman was created for man, and man was not created for woman.
Women ought to be submissive to their husbands as man is to the Lord.
True, taking each one of these examples, you might give me a reasonable
"explanation".  However, when taken as a whole, altogether, I find
that the Bible is sickening.

More to come in future posts!
-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc