User talk:Naturalpsychology

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am signing all of my posts now. Thank you. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Brevity

Please note the guidelines at WP:TALK, which include the excellent advice to be brief. In your comments at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses you have not only repeated much of your lengthy comments about the "Satan's control" reference, but have copies screeds of material from the Watchtower Library that is quite unnecessary on this talk page. You have also inserted unsigned comments in the middle of mine, which renders the conversation pretty meaningnless to anyone else trying to read it. It is very hard to engage in a meaningful discussion when you are swamping the talk page with this material and failing to clearly identify the point you're trying to make. LTSally (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

LTSally: Thank you for your comments, Please remember the Wikipedia guidelines to be polite. Thank you. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

In my comments in the future will, I will try to be more succinct. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology. Please follow the Wikipedia guidelines and try, please to be polite. Thank you. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Additions of http://.winmentalhealth.com/

RE;"...operates a psychology website which features self help and professional therapies in psychology. http://www.winmentalhealth.com "

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I deleted to the two links to the website, and will keep all of the above in mind in any contributions to Wikipedia. I am new to the Wikipedia editorial process and appreciate the above comments. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Welcome, and please...

Be brief and clear. Your lengthy opening statements on new topics at the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page are tiring to read. Amen to that which others have already mentioned here on your talk page. Rather than presenting a lecture, find the key point that you are detailing--a proposed change or other concern--and state it as clearly and briefly as possible. Then bring up supporting material as the need arises.

We appreciate having a diverse team of wiki-editors, and your comments and contributions are certainly welcome here. I hope you don't take our advice as hostile. Best wishes. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 20:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to be more succinct in my comments.Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A piece of advice

Dear user Naturalphychology,

I noticed your edit-war with LTSally, but I didn’t have the time understand the real issue at stake or even to get involved, because my schedule is very busy. I have personal experience with LTSally and I know firsthand how difficult he is in cooperation. See my talk page for further info on that. On the other hand, you also need to study carefully the WP policy concerning the editing, so that your claims may be al;ways sound not only on the basis of your personal knowledge or experience but on the basis of the standards of WP.

For the moment I would suggest you to work on positive things. For instance, the section about the beliefs of JWs is very poor and its very target is not to explain spherically what JWs believe, that is, how they view God, his will, the human race, the person etc, but simply how JWs differ from mainstream Christianity. So, here we actually have a distorted description of JWs, which though could be easily improved.

The last thing I want to say, for the moment, is that the whole involvement in WP takes a lot of time, and it takes even more time when we engage edit-warring and do endless negotiations with bad faith users, who don’t have other interests in life beyond WP and Internet in general.

--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and help. SincerelyNatural (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

I too have urged LTSally to moderate the userpage, however you might take care to remember that it goes both way. It appears you are pro and she is Anti. I don't know just the way it reads....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be my turn. I can see what Natural went through, and it seems to me that he was far too gentle with this fanatic. Not that I think any individual editor is going to make any improvement on any article on LTSally's turf. The only way WP will be able to overcome this bias will be as a community. Downstrike (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check your user page

Check whether the recent (last?) edit by an IP user 165.130.136.206 was something you wanted. If so, was this perhaps you having forgotten to login? If not, well you have a feisty crew within the 165.130.136.* address space, and likely your school? You have my sympathies. Shenme (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please cease your harassment

Scott or whatever your name is, please stop posting your idiotic comments on my talk page. I have no interest in your opinions. LTSally (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do note that Wikipedia pages starting with "User:" are in what is called the "user space" and do not have to follow the same rules as pages in the "article space" (See WP:User page). According to WP:User page#Removal of inappropriate content, if you find LTSally's (or anyone's) user page offensive, you should start a discussion in WP:Miscellany for deletion, and alert LTSally of your actions. Also, Wikipedia pages starting with "User talk:" are for talking to/with that user, and such pages are managed by that user. Your contributions will be more readily accepted by the Wikipedia community if they focus on specific article content, rather than particular contributors. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip on handling offensive material. Sincerely Natural (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. --Natural (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure you log in when you edit or you may be accused of sockpuppetry. Note that "some with an extreme viewpoint" and "presents a balanced view" are your opinions and should not be added to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please advise editors when making a complaint about them

I have twice before raised with you the need to advise other editors if you are going to make complaints on Wikipedia administrator noticeboards. This is a common courtesy, allowing that editor to defend himself. Someone has pointed out to me that you have made another complaint about me on the COI noticeboard today. Once again you made no attempt to alert me, which suggests a level of deviousness on your part. You are also continuing to make unsigned edits and edits under anonymous IP addresses. Can you please try to familiarise yourself with some Wikipedia basics before you continue here? When making a comment, please sign in under your user name, and end your comment with four tildes. That's all -- just four tildes. Wikipedia will do the rest.

I appreciate you finally raising on the JW talk page a specific point you believe breaches the policy on neutrality. I have replied to this. Please try to be equally specific with any other objections, so each can be discussed, rather than making general complaints about books by apostates. This allows a reasoned discussion and will help to improve the article. LTSally (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I notified you twice that I was going to make a complaint, you deleted my comments both times on your page and sent me a nasty note that as still on my talk page. I had asked several times for you to please make changes in your talkpage, or I would ask to have your page deleted. I haven't done that yet, but am planning to. Why did you delete my comments from your page? --Natural (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC) If please you would reconsider taking off the questioned comments on your talk page. The adjectives are strong against Jehovah's Witnesses and aren't appropriate. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You did suggest that at some time in the future you were going to make a complaint about my user page and seek its deletion. That is not sufficient information. When you make a complaint against an editor you need to advise the editor at that time and indicate where the complaint was made to allow that editor to defend himself. I deleted your comments from my talk page because it was tiresome rubbish that was stretched out with so many extraneous line spaces that it dominated my talk page. I also find it inappropriate to quote misapplied Bible texts at me when dealing with perceived breaches of Wikipedia policy. LTSally (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with LT, it doesn't matter you said you might do this things....You still have to notify the involved parties when you take action. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still getting used to all the procedures, being somewhat new. In the future, if I have any formal complaint, I'll notify about the specific page. Thanks for the tips on procedures.Natural (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

ON a side note. it's important to maintain NPOV, but it is a good thing to see someone here that is from a pro stance.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope it genuinely helps the article.--Natural (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears you are possibly a JW. I hope that a balanced view attracts more people to the faith. I was raised a witness, I was a unbaptised publisher and was removed when I was a teen. I still believe although disagree with some procedures, but hey we're all human...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I am a JW. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, I had spiritual trouble as a teen, but was able to get it back together when in my 20s. It has been a long road, and I'm in my 40's now. There have been refinements of various types in the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses over the past number of years, and it is resulting in a better way of handling many matters in the congregation. This is of benefit for persons like ourselves who may have strayed from the Christian way, and the way of handling things when I was young and having trouble is considerably different today. My wife and I were talking about it just yesterday.--Natural (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Procedure on nominating a page for deletion LTSally Page

This won't go anywhere as you haven't read the instructions and followed the process. And again, it was uncourteous of you not to notify LTSally as per the directions: Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|User:LTSally}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have now. Thank you. But you still need to finish the MFD process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I placed the MFD tag on LTSally's Talk page. I think there is one more step involved. If you happen to know to guide me to the next step? Thanks. --Natural (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Go here and type {{subst:mfd3|pg=User:LTSally}} --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of posting your ocmment on why it should be deleted to the MFD page. It still shows on LTSallys page too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, then, I shouldn't do the instructions that are mentioned by Neil above? You did already? --Natural (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You still need to do them. Hell In A Bucket took care of another step for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And another editor took care of the last step. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Hell In A Bucket and I helped with the procedure; you don't need to do much more besides wait to see what the community, and LTSally, decides. Just so you know, the steps to WP:MFD are detailed on that page, starting at Wikipedia:MFD#How to list pages for deletion. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, those of us involved in this particular mfd should also try to comment on other unrelated mfds, since we naturally hope that others will comment on this one. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

This is a courtesy note before I take formal action against you that I have lodged a request for investigation of possible sock puppetry. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naturalpsychology. Either through ineptitude or an attempt at deception, I believe you are using an IP address, User:69.116.69.75, to add edits in support of your statements at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. This is classified in Wikipedia as sock puppetry and because it is deceptive, is strictly forbidden. An edit made here under the IP address contained an incompelete sentence. Minutes later you completed the edit under your Naturalpsychology username. Further unsigned comments were added from that IP address here, here and here. I have left a message at the talk page of User talk:69.116.69.75 asking whether this is a sock puppet account. There was no response and further edits from that IP address were made after that message. I pointed out on the JW talk page that the IP address was located in Newark, NJ, which is where you say you live. The second-last edit fron the IP address removed the reference to Newark.

Your earlier edits strongly suggest that you are using both accounts, with your latest edits apparently trying to cover your tracks. This is a very serious matter that could result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. If you are using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia in an attempt to deceive other editors, please stop immediately. You have been asked numerous times to sign in when editing here and also to sign your posts. The defence of inexperience starts to lose any meaning when you continue to ignore those requests and act in a manner that suggests you are trying to bend the system. LTSally (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this. I have one account, that is, Natural, it used to be Naturalpsychology, but now is Natural. I live in Newark, but don't want the whole world to know. I use one computer and occassionally use a library computer when I come home from work, or a computer in a local store. A few times I failed to sign my edits or my talk page comments, but I tried to go back and sign them. I'll take a look at the ones you mentioned. So, you are saying I'm using two seperate accounts and deliberatly covering my tracts? Why would I be dishonest, when I am a Jehovah's Witnesses, and know what the Bible says about lying. I believe that liars won't inherit God's kingdom. So I try very hard not to lie. So, I'm telling you the truth. I don't know who HellintheBucket is, I wouldn't use a name like that myself, but he seems like a nice guy, and I don't talk to myself. So relax, there's no sockpuppetery. I'm still learning the ropes at Wikipedia, I don't quite have the system down yet. I wouldn't know how to do what you are saying if I tried, and the Wikipedia system still is a little confusing to me. Sorry if there were any issues, but I'll try to clear them up. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A personal appeal

I find the escalation of your rhetoric against me rather bizarre and worrying. In the last week or so you have begun heaping invective on me at every opportunity, including at an admin noticeboard dealing with the completely unrelated issue of your behaviour in editing under a multiplicity of guises. In just the last day or two you have made the following accusations:

• My aim is to put negative propaganda on JW articles and discredit the religion by making them look like extremists.
• I am promoting apostate literature.
• I am hiding from elders in my former congregation.
• I am being "purposely blunt" with my edits.
• I am "very aggressive".
• My edits are making things "a little scary".
• I am spying on your computer.

None of those things are true. I am editing articles relating to the religion and doing my best to ensure that everything there is factual, neutral and drawn from reliable published sources. I’m curious to see just which of my edits you believe were made with the intention of demonising your religion.

You and I clearly have a difference in perception. You have claimed the JW article has a negative slant against Witnesses and you particularly cited the opening five paragraphs as being dominated by controversial and negative aspects. I have pointed out to you that in those five paragraphs there are references to just three aspects about the religion that have drawn criticism. The rest of the article is similarly balanced and accurate.

The fact that you read a lengthy article explaining the beliefs, practices and history of the religion and see only negativity is one thing. That’s your problem. But when you start to claim that I am aggressive and making you scared, this becomes a serious allegation about my behaviour here. It seriously impugns my reputation and becomes a wider issue that may need third-party intervention.

You have made a complaint about the content of my user page and that's your right. You have stated your view about it – repeatedly and on an increasing number of platforms within Wikipedia. I have stated my case and I will accept the decision of the Wikipedia community when it’s made in the next week or so.

In the meantime I want you to cease maligning me on this website. Deal with articles and stop focusing on personalities, Stop these slurs and wild exaggerations. Wikipedia has a firm policy against making personal attacks. I want you to set aside your hatred of me and deal with me as another Wikipedia editor. In one of your recent messages you appealed for peace and a truce. Please live up to that. LTSally (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you assurance that I don't have hatred for you. I feel that you are misguided in opposing Jehovah's Witnesses, and that you need to be more balanced about it.

also, I've prayed for you a number of times.

Jehovah's Witnesses aren't perfect as individuals or organizationally, by, as a whole, they are true Christians, even if they haven't been perfect in their doctrine in history. Also, the better advice for you as far as opposing Jehovah's Witnesses, is what it states in the Bible concerning the Apostles,

"I say to YOU, Do not meddle with these men, but let them alone; (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them;) otherwise, YOU may perhaps be found fighters actually against God.”

You might actually find yourself fighting against God. That is a serious thing. It is better to be cautious and not fight against a Christian religion even if you might not agree fully with it.--Natural (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care if an editor is "fighting against God". Wikipedia cares that its rules are followed. If criticism of an editor pertains to WP rules, the criticism belongs here. Otherwise, it doesn't. --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have to say I had a good laugh at "the better advice for you as far as opposing Jehovah's Witnesses, is what it states in the Bible concerning the Apostles ... You might actually find yourself fighting against God." That's right, it's ok when JWs say all other religions, including all the other Christian ones, are false and controlled by Satan, but one must "exercise caution" when discussing JWs, because then you might be "fighting against god".--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it would be a remarkably cynical religion that didn't believe itself to serve God.
A religion might view its detractors as detractors of God, and the religion and its adherents have every right to use a wide range of forums to convince others that this is so.
Wikipedia is not such a forum. That's my only point. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why you would go and misspell 'February' in my previous edit. But aside from that, no one said that members of a religion shouldn't believe their religion to be true, but that's not quite the same thing as empty 'threats' about 'fighting against god', or insisting that their beliefs are facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My assurances to the WP community that I have no contentions with February or its proper spelling. I see that my edit did remove a character from the edit prior to mine, but I don't recall doing so and thus I conclude that I did so unintentionally. I'd hope it's obvious that nothing untoward was intended, and I apologize for my "foot in mouse" error (and subsequent awful punnery). Please excuse the distraction.
Per the thread: While this is plainly not the forum for a lengthy discussion on the matter, allow me to clarify that I actually do believe that most developed countries celebrate the right to free speech. Listeners draw their own conclusions, or avoid speech they dislike. Speakers (such as a religion's adherents) typically do have the right to evangelize their beliefs as truthful (that is, as "facts") in a wide range of forums. I simply observed that WP is not such a forum.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Policies

When you need help understanding policies swing by. I'll try to explain what's happening or why. There is a lot of policies here and it's easy to violate them, otherwise welcome to the pedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Natural (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Anytime a page is vandalised severely we have the ability to ask for page protection. It is important to point out though, unless the vandalism is extreme articles aren't protected for long lengths of time. I personally agree that on some of the more disputable articles it should be autoconfirmed users, however Wiki has a core policy of open editing so entirely cutting that off is not likely. Review WP:PP it has the guidelines we use to determine which we can protect and how long. Also just a suggestion and in no way a criticism, read this too WP:TLDR, some of your comments have been pretty long and a lot of editors won't even read them. as far as Hiab, lots of people use that, or you can use Jake. whatever you're more comfortable with. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips--Natural (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to ask another editor for advice regarding page protection, but you can also do it (the request, not the protection) yourself. To ask for protection on a specific page, please follow the instructions here. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 01:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea--Natural (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be rude.

Sorry I missed your comments from the 15th. I work with At&t in Customer care. I do like art, I doodle and work abstract art at work, takes away some of the stress sometimes when people are screaming at me about their phone service. I will come back when I can post a poem here, hate accessing email from work. Hit me up with the book link. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long, preoccupied with the editing and a million other things of life. Trying to do some art this weekend, would like to break into portraits and have a friend staying with us who is pushing me onward.

This is the book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards. The old version is out there for a few pennies, this is the new version on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/New-Drawing-Right-Side-Brain/dp/0874774195/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264194841&sr=8-1 It's worth getting if you want to develop your skills. Great exercises.

Keep in touch. This is my email if you ever want to "chat" teacas@gmail.com Ciao.Natural (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

Talkback

Hello, Naturalpsychology. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Silent Lambs article AfD tag added

AfD tag = Article for Deletion

If you wish to copy your comments from here please do so. Andy5421 (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

You have removed properly sourced criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses, entered under the "criticisms" section, claiming they are "biased". Why? The statements are criticisms. They are balanced with a response and rebuttal by Watch Tower literature. Your intent appears to be the removal of all criticism, which suggests you are trying to turn the JW article into a one-sided promotion of the religion. I will continue to counter such efforts by you, just as I would counter the efforts of any editor who removed all statements complimentary of the religion. LTSally (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the criticism, with the exception of one sentence. The criticisms that you have placed and kept, are one-sided, clearly. I placed in information that balanced out the criticims, that are left undefended on the Wikipedia page. My intention now is to place a posting on the appropriate Wikipedia page of bias in editing by LTSally, I'll post this also. I feel that your editing at the present time violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, and I don't have the continued energy to wrangle over each and every small edit, seeing, how all the balancing points on the criticisms page were removed by you. I did not remove all statements, rather, I added references which balanced out the criticisms, I removed only one line. Is Wikipedia a forum to criticize others religions that you disagree with, and not allow opportunity to present the other side of the issue? Only criticisms are allowed, with no opportunity for defense? No, your editing is sharply biased with a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness POV. I'm going to post a complaint now, and will give the page, as soon as I can find it. I'll post this on your talk page, and on the discussion page also. Thank you.Natural (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Natural

You are wrong in claiming the criticisms are one-sided. Under social criticisms, paragraph 1 has a claim and a rebuttal. Paragraph 2 has a claim and a rebuttal that misrepresents the view of a sociologist. If you cannot provide a page number that backs up the statements you added, I will remove it and that claim will remain without a rebuttal. Perhaps there is none to make. Paragraph three presents the WT view of the obligation for JWs to preach and an opposing view. Paragraph 4 contains a criticism about Witnesses being coerced to refuse tranfusions and a dubious rebuttal you added that says Witnesses are free to choose whether to accept or reject transfusions. I have requested a citation for that claim. If you don't provide one that too will be removed. LTSally (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel the arguments you allow are the strong references against JW. the rebuttals you allow are weak responses, basically saying, JW deny it. So, the references I'd put in in defense and clarifying the position of JW have all been removed for no reason, other than, the purpose or this editing, is to make JW look extreme and to stick as thoroughly as possible to apostate references. When I make an addition to clarify, it is always edited out. So, yes there are some weak rebuttals, that you are permitting, but the majority of what I've put in from the Watchtower on the suheading, Social Criticisms in particular, has been edited out, for no reason.

These statements:

Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization,[297][298] promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations.[299][300] Frequent calls for loyalty, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to refer to the religion's leadership as autocratic. [301] [302]

The rebuttal I placed was edited out, along with the balancing references.

You have a specific point of view, or you along with other editors, and that's the view you want it to stay. If anyone changes it, you edit, or someone, edits it out. In other words, your purpose in the editing of this article is to make JW seem to be dictatorial and autocratic, unfeeling, systematic. When I've include balancing statements without removing these statements, as they are, they are edited out, always, in this article. That is why this article still has a very strong bias. It's trying to make JW look extreme. JW are much more balanced than the picture that is being made in the Wiki article, both in practice, and in their writing. --Natural (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have the same bias Natural....You are just at the other side. You have to fight a fight like this with policy. If the views can be backed up there's little LT or anyone can say. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the difference. I am allowing the apostate things to be up there, and also, the criticisms, but if the cricitisms and accusations are going to be there, then they have to be allowed to be defended. Each time I do that, Sally or others take them off. JEFF, there, he put some back up, but they won't allow me to defend the issue or present the counterpoint to it. So, it's resulting in a negative article with an apostate flavor, rather than a balanced one. I put a lot of work into adding references and so on, and then each time, they get edited out, usually by the same editor, either at that same time, or they wait until the lock comes off, or the bias flag comes off, and the take it out, hope it is not noticed. It's too much work to do editing, and then have it all taken out at whim. --Natural (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To ensure your edits remain, use sources only to support statements they are saying rather than what you are saying. You are adding too much material that is your own opinion. Your recent edits on social criticisms have added claims that, until you provide specific pages that prove they are in the source material, appear to be your own opinions. These are, specifically, Holden's "rejection" of claims that the WTS employs a form of mind control through isolating its members from criticism, and that the WTS allows JWs to decide for themselves whether they wish to accept blood transfusions. I have raised these issues with you already, but so far you have done nothing to address the issues. And congratulations for "allowing" "apostate things" to remain in the article. They are called criticisms, and they are correctly located in a section called Criticisms. LTSally (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1.I had specific pages for the references on Holden, and they were removed. The major issue is in social criticisms, the specific references with pages concerning clariications on these senteneces:

Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization,[297][298] promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations.[299][300] Frequent calls for loyalty, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to refer to the religion's leadership as autocratic. [301] [302]

were removed. The way the text is now is very biased without NPOV or opportunity for defense against accusations made by apostates.

The clarifications and references on this paragraph which were put in were also all removed.

Watch Tower literature warns that "independent thinking", such as questioning the counsel it provides, is dangerous.[308] [309][310] The Watch Tower Society instructs members to not read criticism of the organization by apostates, or former members,[311][312] or literature published by other religions.[313][314][315] This has led some critics to accuse the society of causing mental isolation with the intent of mind control.[316][317][318] Sociologist Andrew Holden, who has studied Jehovah's Witnesses, rejects the idea of "mind control,"[Full citation needed] stating that becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an act of free will, and that most whom he interviewed felt an increased measure of personal well being and happiness in their association with the religion.[319]

Watch Tower publications say that the preaching work is "a fundamental requirement of their faith", and an obligation for Jehovah's Witnesses.[320][321][322] Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society's

Those are the major issues. There are some other major issues with the article also.--Natural (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. You have copied some paragraphs from the article, but I don't know what you're saying has happened with them. Can you provide the diffs here, or failing that, identify what date you added those references? In the interests of harmony, cooperation and communication I'm happy to look back to see what you wrote and, if it was me who removed your edits, discuss those points. In the meantime, do you have a Watchtower reference that shows that the acceptance of blood transfusions is a matter of personal decision for Witnesses? This is quite startling news to me and I'm interested to see where you got that information. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, will give attention to it.--Natural (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been very slow work, but I've made a small improvement to the NPOV of the Criticism section. Downstrike (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen you in a minute.

How are you scott, haven't seen you editing in a while. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

J..... I haven't been editing the past few months. I was getting too irritated with the one other editor who was so firmly opposed, so I thought it best to take a break and get some perspective. Now I feel a little better and will try to do some balanced editing, if Jehovah wills. Natural (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Good to see you back Scott! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I just came by the jehovah's witnesses talk page and read your comments - I agree with you completely in your assertions that the article needs to base itself of scholarly sources rather than the apostate or JW sources. In fact I argued the same point at some length six months ago Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive_42#My_two_cents_and_a_half. In the end I was fairly disenchanted with the editing environment and decided to leave the discussion - but I am happy to see you taking it up again. Good luck!·Maunus·ƛ· 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It's May now, am going to try to do some balanced and real editing that upgrades the quality of the Wikipedia main Jehovah's Witness article and cleans up some others if it is possible. Any positive support is encouraging. Thanks. Natural (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Editing marathon

I can see you've been very busy! However there may be some need for a little moderation. You made 22 edits over the space of two hours, some of which were helpful and some of which were not (introduction of repetition, altering statements made in cited sources, wrong interpretation). Please remember that this is a collaborative effort and it places a big demand on other editors to pore over all those edits to review your changes (and mine). One might be accused of trying to get one's changes on to the page through a process of exhausting other editors. It would be more courteous to take your time with these edits, to allow the normal discussion and editing process to take place. Wikipedia:There is no deadline is a good page to read. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brevity

Your comments on the talk page of the Jehovah's Witnesses are becoming far too long. Please keep your comments brief and to the point. Talk pages are not the place for venting your views about criticism of your religion. BlackCab (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to misuse article talk pages as a forum for your personal views. See [1] and [2]. Please stop. BlackCab (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, do you count the time you spend editing and "chatting" at Wikipedia on your monthly witnessing report? Do you consider your work at this website as spreading the good news and promoting God's kingdom? BlackCab (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Really that is none of your concern. This is borderline harassment, if it's too long you can link to WP:TLDR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not harassment. It is a simple question asked in good faith. BlackCab (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed no one else has come here to express concern about Natural's edits? The problem here is that both people have COI's and the real meter should be the people that don't have that bias. This is a oil and water dispute, nothing he says will appease you much like nothing you say will appease him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of the user's posts have been unnecessarily long and sermonish. I disagree with BlackCab's suggestion of 'counting time', though it seems this was asked out of frustration of continued lengthy posts rather than an initial insinuation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of brevity is noted. I wrote from the heart, responding to Jeffro's comments. Natural (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Removal of sourced facts without discussion

You are continuing to remove sourced factual material from the Jehovah's Witnesses article without discussion and persistently reverting the article when this is restored. The issue of the expectations for 1975 has been discussed at the talk page and four separate citations were supplied at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Selling homes in 1975. Please stop your disruptive editing now. BlackCab (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We had since discussed and agreed on this point. This was the quote from BlackCab's discussion on the point of selling homes and 1975- "Will you delete the line or shall I?" BlackCab (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 Natural (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The discussion was not about that. In Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Commendation for Witnesses who sell their homes for benefit of the Watch Tower Society I was discussing the line added by another editor that reads "though Witness publications since then have also commended Witnesses who've sold homes and preached in "the short time remaining". At the close of that discussion I wrote, "Those citations provide no support at all for the claim that Witness publications since 1975 "have also commended Witnesses ..." BlackCab (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize exactly what you were referring to. Natural (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Undo Edits.

Go to the history page. It should show each edit made and next toi it should be a blue link that says undo. make sure to leave a edit summary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to do that.Natural (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Editing marathon (Part 2)

I have previously raised with you the problem of making so many edits in one hit. You have just made a sequence of 16 edits to the Jehovah's Witnesses article, which is excessive. Many of these edits are substantial and many of them are changes that are likely to be contentious. I have found a number of errors among them that need to be fixed. It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to make so many changes in one short period of time because it obviously makes it difficult for other editors to note the changes and discuss, challenge or revert them. I have reverted the whole sequence and suggest you do these in a much more measured fashion. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do, point, though, a number of times, it's the same edit, I'm just adjusting it. But will do it as you said it above. Natural (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I had signed the bottom, but didn't realize that you should side those middle comments also. I wasn't sure about that, but now know. Natural (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Talkback

Hello, Naturalpsychology. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Look it, let's drop it alright. Everyone's got their choices, but you're not being balanced with Jehovah's Witnesses. You need to be more balanced. Even if you think that JW aren't 100%, nothing's all bad and nothing's 100% good. There is too much good in JW for someone who is balanced to take such a negative view. That's the point. There's a lot of good in JW, and you have to take a more objective look at things. Anyone can leave JW when they want, including me, but I make the choice to stay, and it's my own choice. But, why is someone going to go to such extremes to try to oppose JW. There is a 1000 religions out there. All of them have errors. It's not balanced. Organized religion is not the Devil. It gives a support to many people that's necessary and does a lot of good. It might not be your personal choice or suit your needs, but that's fine, but this determined opposition thing at all costs, that's too extreme, and that it meets a response when you attack people. You attack our religion, and then when I defend it you say shame on me as if I'm doing something wrong. So, that's the idea. Natural (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's not good to fight too strong against anyone. Even me as a JW, shouldn't fight too hard against a clergyman, or evolutionist. You have to be balanced. Not all JW are that way, and the Watchtower only in the past 15 years or so has become more balanced in certain issues, even in the matter of evolution and science. So, anyone, that's the idea. In the past they were more dogmatic about things, the past 20 years or so, the emphasis has been more on balance and modesty, those type of things.Natural (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Hi Natural

I am a new comer in English wikipedia project and I went through some old talk pages in JW articles. I appreciate your good contributions to make JW article's bias free. I know Ex.Jw's here are doing so much discouragement. Never feel bad about it. Jehovah appreciates your good work. But be aware of talking too much to them because we cannot change them. As you know Satan(who is very intelligent) know Jehovah was right, but he won't change since his prestige won't allow. Its same for apostates, they will not change because their hearts are hardened like the the pharisees. We cannot change the world. Even Jehovah cannot. Like you I am also a logical thinker, who is 100% confident that Jw's are truth. Even if some mistakes appear in the organization due to imperfection, it is not a reason to dismiss all the truth we attained from it. Jesus disciples said, "Where will we go? Since the words of life is with you". Apostates never attain happiness in life,that's why they work here( At least they feel happy when they write negatively to witnesses). But we are having peace and security. May the undeserved kindness and peace of the Lord Jehovah and Jesus with you..--  Logical Thinker  21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good counsel. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a month and a half. You are right about all of the above. Like the Apostle Peter said and you stated, "Whom shall we go away to?" I ask opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses that question and have yet to get any type of satisfying response. Thanks again.Natural (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your page is on my watchlist, so I noticed this response (and the religious rhetoric that preceded it). The idiomatic "Whom shall we go away to?" gambit is in reality, meaningless. It presupposes that something unproven and unprovable is in fact true (ignoring that some things that were 'true' had to be 'adjusted'), and then makes a subjective judgement about what would have to be 'better', with a preconception that no such solution can exist, without objectively considering anything at all. The same argument could be raised about absolutely any cherished but unproven notion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I use the expression, not like Pilate said, "What is truth?" as if truth can't be found, but, in that, if there was a Christian religion that more closely followed first century Christianity, I would be a part of it. However, so far, I've not seen a Christian religion like Jehovah's Witnesses, despite some shortcomings in the history of its eschatology. The spiritual food is of superior quality, in my estimation, for both Jehovah's Witnesses and those on the outside. Also, the Christian brotherhood provides both a framework for "love and fine works," as well as a structure for which to bring Christ to non-Christians and for missionary work both in host countries such as the U.S., or in going overseas. With that in mind, I've visited many churches, including Mormon, Presbyterian, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Muslim moseques, and have read about many other religions, studied their teachings, but I haven't found one that I feel is on the same level of closely following the Bible as Jehovah's Witnesses. That's what I mean by, "Whom shall we go away to."

Natural (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your statement of opinion here is not consistent with your rather more dogmatic agreement with "all of the above" from 'Logical Thinker' including his (actually just parroting JW literature) stereotypical opinions about 'apostates'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is just parroting the Bible, if you want to look at it like that. God's Word becomes a part of us. I am a broad-minded person. I have studied all religions and don't condemn individuals even though I might not agree with particular forms of worship. Also, the Wikipedia approach here gets me on the defensive. I don't think that the editing is being totally fair and so it brings out another side of me. I'm trying not to be that way, but to be reasonable with the whole thing. I teach kids of all religions in school and of different sexual orientations, and you have to be tolerant of their beliefs and practices. This particular article is on one specific topic, so I'm just dealing with trying to get the article to be balanced. Natural (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, to note, I went to those churches, etc. at funerals and weddings of family and neighbors. So, you hear the mass, sermon, etc. and are able to observe different forms of worship and styles firsthand. Natural (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Granted, the beliefs of most (probably all) other religions are also largely irrational and unprovable, but that does not automatically mean that yours is true or best. The Bible does not discuss 'apostates' in the same pejorative sense that JWs employ to refer to former JWs. Where the NWT does use the word 'apostate' (only in the Old Testament), other translations use the words 'godless' (ESV, NAS, NIV, NLT, RS), 'profane' (ASV, HNB, YLT), or 'hypocrite' (Darby, KJV, Webster), but not a term specifically indicating 'former believers'. Strong's Concordance does not support the NWT's translation of the original word (chaneph, Strong's No. 2611) as 'apostate' in those instances; the NWT employs the JW jargon term in those verses to affect their perception of former members, without specific support in the original text. The Bible (including the NWT) never refers to former Christians (and certainly never former JWs) as 'apostates'. (Strongs No. 3249 is closer in meaning to 'apostate'. Strongs 646G, apostasia, is also not used in the Bible to refer to former Christians.) The opinions expressed above about 'apostates' are therefore indeed parroting JW literature rather than the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone who leaves Christianity or Jehovah's Witnesses, who no longer believes in the doctrines of the Bible or Jehovah's Witnesses, and an apostate. An apostate actively works against their former religion. This is not a term only in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and is not Jehovah's Witness jargon, but is used in modern times by sociologists to describe those who have left their former religious organization and now work actively against that. This can be in the Catholic religion, or any other religion, including some Buddhist sects, according to Bryan Wilson. The "apostate," to use the word he uses, is not a good source of information, and sociologists don't take them as a reliable source of information, according to Wilson, who was an imminent scholar and authority on sects.

Also, while the Greek Scriptures might not use the term apostate, I have to research that, it does teach the same principle.

2 John 9 syas, "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work."

That is the scriptural position that Jehovah's Witnesses take against apostates, the same as taught by the Apostle John. (If apostate is not an acceptable word, then whatever other word you might want to use for that).

Quite incorrect. The distinction you make about former members compared to 'apostates' is simply JW pejorative usage. In actuality, there is no such distinction, and the actual meaning of the word 'apostate' is not identified by any particular degree of outspokenness. You attempted to employ this incorrect definition at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive_49#Independent Thinking Botting reference and statement, where I showed the JW pejorative usage to be not at all compatible with the actual dictionary definition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken.

Bryan R. Wilson - Emeritus Professor, Oxford - Cults & New Religious Movements: Apostates - Apostasy - Apostate Syndrome http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/bryan-ronald-wilson-apostates-apostasy-cults.html

Religious Freedom Watch

Apostates and New Religious Movements

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/apostates-and-new-religious-movements/

There are many more articles like this.

Whether you believe I am mistaken is irrelevant. The article you linked, which you believe supports your view, first indicates the actual definition of 'apostate' before it presents the specific information within the scope of that article. The article states: "Apostasy may be considered no less to occur when a single erstwhile believer renounces his vows and his former religious allegiance." There is absolutely no conditional element that a person is only an 'apostate' based on their degree of outspokenness or any other particular motive. The article goes on to state that "a member who departs is likely to be regarded as apostatizing, and all the more so, of course, if that member then proceeds to ridicule or excoriate his former beliefs and to vilify those who were previously his close associates." This is in contrast to your view (the JW pejorative view) that a person is 'apostatitzing' only if they are in the 'all the more so' category. Your view is simply incorrect. The term 'apostate' is used by JWs as a thought-terminating cliché to discourage contact with former members, whereas any person who rejects the beliefs or ideals of any group is an 'apostate', including JWs who left other religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would Witnesses use 2 John 9, as quoted above, as the basis for shunning a person simply on the basis that he has left that religion? If an individual left the Witnesses to (a) join another Christian denomination or (b) remain outside denominations but still profess belief in Christ and God, then it is obviously wrong to classify him as a person who "runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ". The application of shunning clearly has other purposes, and probably chief among them is a form of intimidation to ensure that no one ever leaves. As Andrew Holden noted, Witnesses tend to reduce their social contact with non-Witnesses when they join the religion, to the point that social contact is only with other Witnesses. As he noted, the threat that an individual would be cut off by family and friends is often enough to ensure he suppresses his doubts or discomforts and remains in the group. The threat of disfellowshipping is therefore used as a means of intimidating and controlling members, yet Witnesses such as yourself resort to scriptures referring to the rejection of Christ and God as justification for that control technique. The device is also used to ensure Witnesses are cut off from reading criticism of their religion, thus hermetically sealing them in a system that only reinforces the official teachings.

Furthermore, as Jeffro points out, it is a device to produce a kneejerk rejection of anything an ex-Witness may say, without the need for analysis. "Logical Thinker" repeats the common Watchtower phrase about "apostates" that "their hearts are hardened like the Pharisees" (a stupid and baseless stereotype), and you, Scott, have often applied that same thinking to the writings of people who have left the religion, suggesting that they are prejudiced, opposed and probably lying. BlackCab (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

When a former JW renounces the JW religion, perhaps to join another religion, they are labelled an 'apostate' and are subsequently shunned by the Witness community (which for obedient JWs forms their entire social network), including their own family. The 15 April 1988 Watchtower stated, "It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum." But what about when a person of another religion becomes a JW? If they are shunned by their family, this is viewed by Witnesses as cruel and inappropriate. In an article about changing religion (to become a JW), the July 2009 Awake! stated, "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." No proviso is given for sincere believers of another religion to justify shunning the 'apostate', even though they are simply applying the same scriptures as JWs. The term 'apostate' is quite definitely used by JWs as one-sided hypocritical jargon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a young man who left, who was alrady baptized, he is in college now. He became an athiest. He doesn't proselitize his views in the congregation and was not disfellowshipped. If you ask he says why he feels that way, his doubts. And he isn't regarded as an apostate. We have another who left, separated herself, dissaosciated herself, didn't join another religion, but started a small following for herself with some of her own ideas. She is considered an apostate. The way the Bryan Wilson uses the term apostate is the way Jehovah's Witnesses view the term. The Bible encourages people to flee from "Babylon the Great," which Jehovah's Witnesses view as a apostate form of worship. Revelation 17, 18. There it says, "Get out of her my people." So, if a person rejoins Babylon the Great, having known the truth from the Bible, then they are making themselves a part of an apostate form of worship, according to the belief of the interpretation of Revelation 17,18.

We have had two examples in our former congregation which shed light on who is considered to be an apostate. These examples and the example that mentioned about, indicate that you are not correct in saying that anyone who leaves the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, or anyone who leaves and joins another religion is considered an apostate. You are mistaken. One sister left Jehovah's Witnesses, while she was still in, tried to create a following for herself, convinced two families to leave. One went to other churches afterwards, another family just faded away, went to an evangelical church, but were still kind and friendly if you met them. The sister who faded away had been disfellowshipped. This family was not considered to be apostates, but were considered to have been the victim of the apostasy of the other sister who was trying to get a following for herself. The sister who faded away had been disfellowshipped, but she wasn't trying to get a following for herself or take people away from the organization, and she was not referred to as an apostate, but a vitim of the apostate. There is a difference, and it is not a subtle difference, it is a clear difference.

Now, when you two do your research in Jehovah's Witnesses publications, quotes are pulled up, that pretty much support whatever you want to prove. That's because there has been a lot printed in Jehovah's Witness literature, and if you take it out of context, you can prove pretty much anything. If you tried hard enough and pulled up enough quotes, you could prove that Hitler was a saint, or that Mother Theresa was evil. You have to take things in context, and according to the way things are actually practiced. Jehovah's Witnesses do not necessarily follow "the letter of the law" with everything that has ever been written in the publications. It is like Stark says, it is often times less formal than that, reasonableness is stressed as well as mercy and balance, and that it is the way it is actually practiced in the congregations today, in general. There may be exceptions and some gaps, but in general, it is very reasonable and merciful. At the same time, there are lines, such as in committing fornication, or in actual apostasy, that cross the lines of the Bible, in which case, if a person is not repentant, he will be expelled, even as was directed in the Bible. 1 Cor 5. Natural (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The fact that you give your view of who is considered an apostate, as indicated by your contrasting examples, demonstrates that you simply do not understand the actual definition of the word. Wilson does not restrict the definition as you do, though he discusses a particular aspect of apostasy as it often relates to new religious movements. Both those people in your examples are 'apostates'. Your subjective rhetoric about "Babylon the Great" or "having known the 'truth' from the Bible" are irrelevant. Your examples, based on JW propaganda, do not at all change the actual definition of the word 'apostate', though the false distinction you draw does highlight the agenda for the selective definition of the term. You may like to consult a dictionary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though, Scott. You wrote that Witnesses disfellowship (and by extension shun) people on the basis of what is written in 2 John 9 ... "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; ... do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." Yes or no: if a member of your congregation wrote a letter of resignation from the congregation because they wanted to associate with a different denomination, would they be shunned? If yes, on what biblical basis, since they still continue in the teaching of God and Christ and the words of 2 John 9 therefore do not apply to them? BlackCab (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Those who reject God's channel, and revert to 'rolling in the mire' have run ahead and no longer remain in Christ's teaching. Incidentally I didn't expect this page to be a source of 'scripture debate'...how deliciously unencyclopaedic! That merely claiming to worship God and honour Christ was not sufficient to maintain 'fellowship' with a person, is demonstrated by Paul's determination to 'hand over to Satan' those who blaspheme, blasphemy evidently including denial of the resurrection (a key doctrine). So those that revert to demonstrably false doctrines such as the trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, and reject Christ's teaching channel, are like Peter's 'sow that was bathed'. As far as interaction with relatives is concerned, those who are part of the household are not shunned, and there will be contact between next of kin outside the household. Also the 'Neighbourly Samaritan' still applies. Also there is a huge difference between a rabid, venomous apostate (they do exist) and merely a disfellowshipped person or a person who has joined another religion. In respect of some denominations/faiths which practise shunning, often they comprise the dominant socio-religious group hence shunning involves shunning by the community at large or a significant portion thereof. No such socially inhibiting consequences pertain to leaving JWs. Very often, ones leaving JWs are glad to embrace a different subset of social interactions. Eusebius12 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In Jehovah lead Israel if someone stops worship Jehovah or cut down his contact with its people he was considered as a person who purposefully leaving after knowing that it was lead by God. Similarly Jesus said if someone stops following him after knowing the truth(placing his hands on Plough) he is not qualified to be his disciple. There is only one way and only one belief according to bible. JW's had already confident they had found it. If someone leaves the organization them he can be considered as a dis fellow shipped person, because he did a sin against God's Organization(Hence holy spirit). Elders are trying to help them, but if he resigns then it is intentional Sin . Another reason is to save the flock from hazards from them. In first century also bible states people voluntarily resigned, and bible calls their actions because of their love to the World and loss of faith. But its notable that from the beginning if JW's intense persecution and pressures had tried to stop its growth. But nothing had succeeded. JW's those work here are not willing to make any favorable statement, but to make article bias free. They are satisfied with it. --  Logical Thinker  07:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Shunning for those who reject the teaching of Christ

Do you mind if I make another point? I asked earlier why Witnesses would use 2 John 9, as quoted above, as the basis for shunning a person simply on the basis that he has left that religion. Those two replies are effectively that by leaving your religion, a person is abandoning Christ. The problem is that it is only the opinion of your religion that it is the sole representative of Christ on earth, yet it resorts to a biblical reason that actually refers to the "teaching of Christ" (surely his words as recorded in the Bible?). It was the opinion of the Pharisees in Jesus' time that they correctly interpreted God's law and they thus treated with disdain and contempt those who failed to abide by their set of rules. What was Jesus' view of them? If a person who today loved Jesus opted to leave one religious denomination to join another, but was then shunned by the first denomination including friends and family, on the basis that they believed they alone served Jesus truthfully, how would Jesus view that denomination? Wouldn't he view it in the same way as he did the Pharisees?

As I've explained before, I've quit going to JW meetings. I honestly find it puzzling that if I went a step further and wrote a letter of resignation, the Witnesses would announce that fact, thus requiring all Witnesses, including family and friends, that they never speak to me again! What actually prompts them to do it?

Stark writes about how the Witnesses leave the "back door" wide open, but fails to note that those who choose to leave (as I did), run the very real risk of being shunned as an apostate, booted up the backside as they go through that door. What is so dreadful about choosing to leave a denomination that warrants a ruling that such persons should never be spoken to again? If it was another religion (Moonies, Peoples Temple, Witnesses would descibe that as cultic behavior, applying techniques designed as punishment, deterrent and scare tactics. I have friends who are disfellowshipped; the father of one recently died, and encountered unbelievable, and unchristian, conduct from his family as he tried to meet with his father before he passed away. Even the funeral was an ugly situation, with my friend unwanted and avoided. His "crime" that warranted disfellowshipping (years after he left) was that he told his brother, an elder, that he no longer agreed with many JW beliefs.

I despair that Witnesses accept and defend teachings such as the shunning one introduced in Sept 1981 without question when they represent a human view rather than a godly one. I've read nothing in the answers above that actually answers my question about the justification for shunning when a person simply decides to leave ... when they still love Christ. The Jerusalem Bible renders 2 John 9 as this: "If anybody does not keep within the teaching of Christ but goes beyond it, he cannot have God with him." I'd suggest that what the Witnesses have done with shunning disassociated people "goes beyond" Christ's teaching. Your thoughts?

May I piggyback there also? I'd be interested in knowing what Natural has to say also. Its an exaggeration to say that we warrant that anybody 'never be spoken to again', there are circumstances where contact will be necessary. Also to treat such a one with 'contempt and disdain' would be unChristian. It is certainly not my practise to treat disfellowshipped ones thus. For example, it would be wrong to walk in another direction to avoid such a one, or not to help him/her in case of accident or whatever (again cf the Neighbourly Samaritan). There is still an obligation to show love to such a person. I have never heard of someone merely being shunned because they have 'doubts', so long as these are not expressed in a context which shows they are explicity challenging teachings. Again there are scriptural precedents for this, e.g. Hymenaeus and Alexander, of whom it is not suggested that they explicity denied Christ, rather the resurrection. They were also teaching other Christians this 'new doctrine', and Paul took stern measures against them (handed them over to Satan, evidently expelling them from the congregation). That Paul's view was similar to John's, is revealed in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (which doesn't mention difference in teaching, although as I have noted Paul took a hard line against those *teaching* different doctrine).

I have not agreed with every detail of GB explanations on various things (even in 2John 9,10 there may be room for refinement, as the Greek and Hebrew concepts of 'greeting' and its implication differ somewhat from our 'hello'), sometimes the official understanding was changed more to reflect what I thought at other times my viewpoint has adjusted over time. I suppose I should say that in my experience, ones leaving JWs to join other religions is very rare. Its not that people leaving JWs is rare, disfellowshippings are not uncommon and many have just drifted away. Those who leave don't seem terrified of being shunned, which is worth noting. Its not like they feel some gun to their head.Eusebius12 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

JWs

Regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses material in general, part of the problem is getting independent reliable sources. We really can't treat sources published by the JWs as equal to independent publishers. For this sort of thing, I think the best ways to proceed would be to file a request for comment as per WP:RFC, maybe contacting any editors dealing with religion or Christianity articles in general, possibly on the talk pages of the relevant projects, or maybe leaving a message on the ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard at WP:ECCN. And, as a small point, saying "BlackCab, formerly LTSally", probably won't mean anything to anyone unless you indicate specifically why you consider that detail important. Otherwise, it might be more likely to raise questions as to why you think it important more than anything else. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I have moved the RFC section that you inappropriately added to the JW article (which was rightly removed) to the article's Talk page. I have not verified whether you have done anything else to properly complete the RFC request.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning the system.Natural (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User talk:Naturalpsychology. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It has now been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Naturalpsychology. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Layout of comments

Can you please pay more attention to the layout of your comments. Add an extra colon to indent your comment, but maintain that indent through that comment. You tend to extend your indent with every paragrah, resulting in your comments sprawling wider across the page and making it more difficult to see where the next person's comment begins. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Obedience and Loyalty First To Jehovah Stressed. BlackCab (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Older publications

You have repeatedly claimed that the use of magazines as old as 1972 should not be cited in Wikipedia articles because they are outdated. You may be interested in noting that in the footnote to the 1993 Awake article, "Why so many false alarms", which offers a rebuttal of the claim that Witnesses are false prophets, it quotes from the following publications:

• The Watchtower, January 1883;
• The Watchtower, December 15, 1896;
• The Watchtower, May 15, 1947;
• The Watchtower, August 15, 1950.

There is clearly no basis to your claim that publications beyond a certain age, or written by men who are now dead, are invalid. And as I pointed out somewhere recently, your view that information published in the Watchtower is wrong is probably something that would warrant a charge of apostasy on the basis that you are running ahead of the organization. A September 2000 WT article, "Show a Waiting Attitude!", noted: "A waiting attitude also helps us to avoid presumptuousness. Some who have become apostate were unwilling to wait. They may have felt that there was a need for adjustments, either in Bible understanding or in organizational matters. Yet, they failed to acknowledge that Jehovah’s spirit moves the faithful and discreet slave to make adjustments in His due time, not when we may feel that this is needed. And any adjustments must be in harmony with Jehovah’s will, not our personal ideas. Apostates allow a presumptuous attitude to warp their thinking and stumble them." --BlackCab (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That apostates have a presumptuos attitude I do agree with. As far as older publications, some terminology as well as ideas from older articles is not used or emphasized. Critisms that certain apostates have made such as Gruess, might have been more valid in the 1960s, but are not valid today. This is true of much of Ray Franz's complaints. Natural (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Rhetoric

Could you please refrain from using stock JW phrases in your posts, such as "I love Jehovah but also fear displeasing Him"? We don't need to know about editors' various philosophical 'motives' or reasons why we should assume good faith about them. Lengthy explanations of your personal religious views filled with JW catchphrases are somewhat preachy, fairly boring, and generally not relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We all know you are not nuetral in your advocation for JW's Natural, it does actually provide people with cannon fodder to question your edits. Try to assume a purely academic view of things and it might help tone that personal side down and still get info you're trying to add included. I know that is difficult for you but it is really going to take things down a notch. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice! Didn't know if you were still around, I'll try to apply what you said here. I am trying to be academic and honest in the edits, rather than try to question everything. I feel that the one editor is very antagonistic, and it gets on my wrong side. But I think you're right about what you're saying here. Thanks. Natural (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Keep in mind bro that our aim is to only make the article balanced. We are happy that unlike the past years the official sites watchtower.org, jw.org and jw-media.org is occurring among the top ten results for the search on JW in Google. It will continue because people visiting them are much higher than other websites. Search engines prefer more priority to sites with more traffic. Out of the ten results only two websites are of opposers of JW. If a person is qualified to be in the truth he will automatically find it some way by God's direction. We know the way of life is narrow and persons who find it is small. Jesus said "do not throw holy things in front of Dogs". Remember the perfect man Jesus was also criticized by people but he never answer to all. Don't worry about other things here. You did a great job in the past year. The advantage for us is that we have answer to any type of criticism and are confident in its organization. Its not because of a natural cause, but of the support of God who makes it possible to unite people from 260 countries in one side. which other religion can make it possible? We are blessed of the great spiritual paradise and peace we have!--  Logical Thinker  08:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the encouragement, agree with the above fully. My father gave me a balanced viwe of things years ago. He said, can a perfect God in heaven use an imperfect organization on earth? The answer is yes. No man was every perfect with the exception of Adam and Jesus. It is apparent that God does use Jehovah's Witnesses despite the imperfections that individuals or the organization has or has had. While critics like to highlight the imperfections and take them out of proportion or context, it is evident from our own experiences in the ministry, and from those we read and hear about, that the preaching work, including the door to door ministry of Jehovah's Witnesses, has angelic backing. Acts 20:20. "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." Matt 24:14. Jesus.Natural (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

As stated at the beginning of this thread, this isn't the place for unproven and unprovable religious rhetoric. There are other forums suitable for revelling in religious personal opinions of what is supposedly 'evident'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, This is my talk page, hot the general forum. If you don't like the conversation you don't have to participate. Thanks. Natural (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Hi

Just wanted to say "hi" personally, Natural. I think you and I had a good, neutral, fair argument about the "tense wording" in the sexual accusations part of JW, and came to a rational agreement about it, so a good start. I asked Jeffro77 about some books he might know of that would give me some information outside of JW publications. I was raised a JW, but to be honest never believed, and haven't been to a meeting since I was 18 (I'm now 26). So I thought I'd ask if you knew of any newer JW publications that might be useful, as most of my books from JW are 10+ years old now. I'm going to attempt to be as neutral as possible, as I have no personal beef with JW's at all, most of the ones I know personally are good people. But I do not believe in God, or religion (ANY religion), at all, so I tend to lean towards my own reasoning and studies from all sources available to me, and most of that is very much anti-religion. However, I do try to be fair, so in that spirit any publications or books that you think would get me up to date on JW's beliefs would be a great help. Anywho, hope all is good with you and yours. Cya. Vyselink (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology's Talk page is on my watchlist, so I noticed your query. List of Watch Tower Society publications is fairly up to date as a starting point for identifying newer JW publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New Publications in the past 10 years

The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking (2010)

Was Life Created? (2010) The Bible—What Is Its Message? (2009) Keep on the Watch! (2004)

· Jehovah's Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe? (2000) - Read online

· You Can Be God's Friend! (2000)

· The Guidance of God—Our Way to Paradise (1999) (for Muslims)

Books:

God's Word for Us Through Jeremiah (2010), commentary on Jeremiah

Sing to Jehovah (2009; 135 Kingdom songs; words and melodies composed by Jehovah's Witnesses)

"Keep Yourselves in God's Love" (2008),

Questions Young People Ask—Answers That Work, Volume 2 (2008)

"Come Be My Follower" (2007)

What Does the Bible Really Teach? (2005), primary text for initial Bible studies

Draw Close to Jehovah (2002)

There are also some videos - one recent on the history of JW. One is one God being the Creator.Natural (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Reply to query

Hi I have quoted the text you asked in my talk page. Apply it as you need. I am not sure where it actually fits.--  Logical Thinker  07:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to use it on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses page, also on the main page. Thanks again.Natural (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural