User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2010b
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jeffro77. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
We should be respectful of other's religious beliefs
When one speaks of other's religious beliefs, we should speak respectfully. We shouldn't be so bold so as to mock the Bible. At John 5:28,29, Jesus Christ said, "Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things, to a resurrection of judgment." In the United States, over 80% of young people still believe in God, the majority of whom are Christian. I had a class with 25 students, and only one did not believe in God. All of the other 24 believed in both God and the Bible. The bible says, "God is not one to be mocked." So, I appreciate that your views are different than that of Jehovah's Witnesses and respect that, but, there is no reason to mock people who are religious and believe in the Bible, even if you might not. So, I'm speaking to you respectfully. I don't like this back and forth fighting about words, and trying to discredit JW, it's not godlike. Whatever mistakes JW made in their attacks on false religion, I personally feel that it is important to show, what the Bible says, the utmost respect of other's religious beliefs and try to at my work and in my witnessing. So, I'm sorry for this position of antagonism against JW that some take, and don't feel that persons who do that honor God or themselves. But, this is how things are. I hope we can all do this respectfully and fairly. Natural (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
- Nor should we get preachy about what Jesus (allegedly) said that people of your chosen belief system should do. If you would like to request something or you're unhappy about behaviour, please state as much without the religious rhetoric. The small relevant portion of your diatribe above has been noted. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- You respect the Bible, and I respect your right to believe what you want. But I don't have to respect the Bible itself, nor do I need to heed 'warnings' that 'mocking' the Bible might result in some dire 'judgment' by one of its main characters (which you apparently imagine to be some actual kind of 'threat', which may be inappropriate). I don't dislike JW beliefs any more or less than I dislike the irrational and/or false beliefs of most (maybe all) other religions. You call all non-JW belief systems "false religion" in the same sentence in which you claim it is important to show "the utmost respect" for other beliefs - so it would be no different for me to say that JWs' beliefs are also false. Since I don't believe 'God' exists, 'honoring' God occupies about the same level of seriousness for me as honoring Yoda.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: WP:JW talk
Hi Jeffro, you mean that I should put {{delete}} in last archive talk (in List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications)? — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I get your picture. I make like that because I think it better if we archiving it each year. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Several of the archives you have made contain only a couple or even only one thread, which is unnecessarily frequent, as you were previously advised when you were blocked for similar behaviour in January. The frequency of Talk page archival is generally determined by consensus of regular editors involved in a project, and arbitrary archiving by uninvolved parties can be disruptive to the project, as was also indicated to you in January. I understand that there are quite a few projects where you have performed unrequested archiving of Talk pages against consensus. Please do not arbitrarily decide what is best without consulting editors involved in the relevant projects.
- The relevant guideline suggests that "It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB, or has more than 10 main topics." It is not practical to rigidly archive by year even if there is only one thread in the Talk page.
- Additionally, several of your archives of Talk:List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications/Talk:List of Watch Tower Society publications have become orphaned due to the renaming of that page in between your spate of archiving. I have fixed this for those pages, merged the archives to reasonable lengths as suggested by the guideline mentioned above, and placed {{delete}} tags on the superfluous pages. I have not checked other projects in which you have been over-zealous in archiving Talk pages, however it is possible that other pages have been similarly affected.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
About the idea that nothing is 100%
On that other thought - God can use a lot of different people. He can use teachers to help kids or some agency, like social workers, some government agencies. The Bible brings that out also in Rom 13. So, no one can say that God only uses this group or that group. But he might use this group for this purpose. So, it's not all black and white. God will use a teacher, whatever religion he or she might be, to help direct a kid to get out of a gang, or not to use drugs, I've seen that with many teachers, not nec. JW. But at the same time, you can find a lot of faults with that same teacher, maybe in treating some kids arbritarily. The same with schools, or even with a self help book. Some self help books I've read have good advice, on, say nutrition, but the section on alternative health, I'm not into those methods. So, I ignore those parts, and take away, the 85% of it, or so, which I feel has value and still recommend the book. If the book has only 15% information that is of any value, I won't recommend it, but 85%, that's good enough. The same with religion.Natural (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
- Please stop preaching at me. I am uninterested in your theological opinions of what 'god' 'can do'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed your prod. Like it or not, this is a notable subject and a well-sourced article. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion one way or the other of this particular subject in general, so "like it or not" is irrelevant. However, the article is comprised of primarily trivial references in various media rather than providing significant information about how the religion has impacted on popular culture. That said, you've raised your objection to deletion, so the {{prod}} template has served its intended purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Heads-up
Just letting you know I nominated George Nathaniel Henry Peters for deletion again, since it has been quite a long period of time and the article has not improved. I figured I'd let you know since you nominated the article last time. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. As noted on the article's Talk page, it was my intention to give it another couple of weeks—which I considered pretty generous, as the article hasn't been improved at all in the six weeks since the first AfD. It's probably better that the second AfD is raised by someone else anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Cuba
Hi Jeffro77,
you have proposed for deletion that article on Jehovah's Witnesses in Cuba. How much should I add, so you would withdraw your proposal for deletion? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- It would not be a matter of how much you add. It would be a matter of what you add. Any amount of trivial information that is not from reliable third-party sources would not make the specific topic more notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding I went through your notification. And I contacted the administrator for help.. The thread is Please help.The discussion is about the topic Logicalthinker33. Thank you. -- Logical Thinker 05:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Apology
I wasn't trying to be offensive to you and apologize. I was trying to use an absurb example so you could see, that even though you are only reporting what other people have written, it is still spreading slander and adding to it. Natural (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
- Accusing me of spreading slander isn't a particularly good apology, but I suppose it's as good as it's going to get.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Jeffro, I know you didn't put all of that page together, and I know that you are pretty fair in your editing, even though I might be a little right wing, and you a little on the left. So, it's not accusing you at all of slander. But it was just trying to help you see that what was up there already on the Wikipedia page was slander, not that you are making slander. Again, I apologize, I didn't mean to attack you personally at all. I was just trying to use an example that would make the point. Sorry again.Natural (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
- Would the Watch Tower Society ever slander anyone? "Christendom’s clergy also have a long record of supporting wars and are thus responsible for the deaths of countless millions of church members." (WT, Dec 15, 2005). "All of this may well remind us of Christendom, steeped in false worship and astrology. And her role in the sacrificing of millions of lives on the altar of clergy-supported warfare is disgusting indeed!" (WT, Feb 15, 2001). "This time, Jehovah’s unbelievable work will be the destruction of Christendom. Like ancient Judah, she claims to worship God but has become thoroughly corrupt." (WT, Feb 1, 2000). "So desolation will begin on faithless Christendom, which portrays itself as holy." (WT, May 1, 1999). "Who are these ones acting wickedly against the covenant? Again, they can only be the leaders of Christendom, who claim to be Christian but by their actions profane the very name of Christianity. Thus, Christendom became more than ever a part of this world—a disgusting apostasy in Jehovah’s eyes." (WT, Nov 1, 1993). "The clergy class will be seen by all the people to have taught false doctrine, to have participated in worldly politics, in wars and revolutions, and the riches that their organizations have gained by exploiting the people will be taken from them." (WT, May 1, 1975). "Destruction, not “peace” or spiritual prosperity, awaits her, because her clergy and church members have shamelessly ‘done even what is detestable’ to Jehovah" (WT, Aug 1, 1979). "Likewise, in Christendom, such a glimpse is only a fraction of the detestable things carried on right in Christendom’s churches." (WT, Aug 15, 1972). The clergy were "the lowest level of iniquitous humanity: (Vindication, Vol 1, 1931), "hypocritical windbags" (WT May 15, 1929), "the most gigantic hypocrites that ever encumbered the earth" (Light, 1930). BlackCab (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. As The Watchtower said, "It is not a form of religious persecution for anyone to say and to show that another religion is false. It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion." (15 November 1963 p. 688) That is, apparently, unless someone points out problems with JW teachings, which is then automatically labelled slander and persecution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would the Watch Tower Society ever slander anyone? "Christendom’s clergy also have a long record of supporting wars and are thus responsible for the deaths of countless millions of church members." (WT, Dec 15, 2005). "All of this may well remind us of Christendom, steeped in false worship and astrology. And her role in the sacrificing of millions of lives on the altar of clergy-supported warfare is disgusting indeed!" (WT, Feb 15, 2001). "This time, Jehovah’s unbelievable work will be the destruction of Christendom. Like ancient Judah, she claims to worship God but has become thoroughly corrupt." (WT, Feb 1, 2000). "So desolation will begin on faithless Christendom, which portrays itself as holy." (WT, May 1, 1999). "Who are these ones acting wickedly against the covenant? Again, they can only be the leaders of Christendom, who claim to be Christian but by their actions profane the very name of Christianity. Thus, Christendom became more than ever a part of this world—a disgusting apostasy in Jehovah’s eyes." (WT, Nov 1, 1993). "The clergy class will be seen by all the people to have taught false doctrine, to have participated in worldly politics, in wars and revolutions, and the riches that their organizations have gained by exploiting the people will be taken from them." (WT, May 1, 1975). "Destruction, not “peace” or spiritual prosperity, awaits her, because her clergy and church members have shamelessly ‘done even what is detestable’ to Jehovah" (WT, Aug 1, 1979). "Likewise, in Christendom, such a glimpse is only a fraction of the detestable things carried on right in Christendom’s churches." (WT, Aug 15, 1972). The clergy were "the lowest level of iniquitous humanity: (Vindication, Vol 1, 1931), "hypocritical windbags" (WT May 15, 1929), "the most gigantic hypocrites that ever encumbered the earth" (Light, 1930). BlackCab (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sex abuse criticisms current or from 2003 and past?
Jeffro, I know that you are honest on this issue from past editing. Is the criticims of JW about the way they handle sex abuse current in reliable sources, or was it mostly from 2003 and past? I don't know all the details. There is always going to be some unresolved thing, but I think you know what I mean. Thanks.Natural (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
- I do not have sufficient information to properly answer your question. I have no direct involvement with the people who make those accusations, and I am not aware of any recent local cases; whilst I have some contact online with various JWs and former JWs, I don't typically engage them on this subject, so I am not especially aware of what various sources have said more recently on the matter. If those who make the accusations were asked (such as members/proponents of SilentLambs), they would probably say the problem is ongoing. A cursory examination of SilentLambs.org indicates that to be the case on their part. I am not entirely convinced that there is a significantly greater proportion of child abuse among JWs than in other communities (though it is generally the handling of the cases that is the chief concern, with what seems to me to be a secondary concern that poor handling or secrecy may create a 'haven' for abusers). I am also aware that there is some tendency for some victims and their supporters to highlight (other) abuse cases that may have only tenuous links to the JW religion, so the actual current magnitude is difficult to gauge. In the absence of any clear statement that the problem, or strong criticism about the problem, no longer exists, I would be reluctant to simply say the criticism is entirely in the past, beyond stipulating the Society revised its policies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Archive of talk page
I think I've asked this question another time about a different page ... do you know how to add the bot to auto-archive talk page threads? Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses is ripe for archiving. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done. The bot initially didn't work because of the length of what was the most recent existing archive page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're a champ. BlackCab (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Watchtower Library Cd-Rom
Hi. I've seen the "Watchtower Library Cd-Rom" mentioned in several places, and would love to get a copy for my own research and study. Do you have any idea where I could get one? Thanks. Vyselink (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Officially, the Watchtower Library CD-ROM is only available from JW congregations for distribution to members. Unofficially, it can also be found online. I don't have a link, and can't endorse unofficial downloads.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I'll find it. Thank you anyway. Vyselink (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Another question, what books do you know of that might be good to read? I have "Crisis of Conscience" but I see references made in the talk pages to ppl I've never heard of. Thanks again. Vyselink (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have, and have not read, any third-party books specifically about JWs. Maybe look for some of the books cited in the JW Wikipedia article, or try a site such as Amazon. User:BlackCab may have some more helpful information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)