hey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
love11, thanks, I'm glad you enjoy the series! I do the research for my own personal edification, and I write the articles in order to share with people who might be interested and to clarify and reiterate the points in my own head. One must always do three times as much research in order to write a convincing paper, so the "pressure" of writing to an audience helps me fill out my knowledge.
SNG
ok so anyway i have been fading for a little over a year now.
during that time i have been primarily focusing on improving my social skills: reconnecting with old high school pals, trying to make sense of the world, trying to connect with others, opening myself up to new belief systems, activities.
now that i am becoming more comfortable around people i am considering pursuing a relationship with someone.
Hello boy@crossroads,
I'll tell you, I've recently been discovering that I have some latent Witness conditioning in me with regard to relationships. Mostly it has to do with the finality and mediocrity of Witness relationships. In the org, people get married at 19, and not because they really are right for each other, but because they happened to be about the same age in the same hall. Usually, their marriages remind me of two people who are friends because they work together, not because they really wanted to be together. And they're expected to stay together forever! The sad grayness oozed from them like melancholy clouds.
I swore I would never let this happen to me. But unfortunately, this has caused me to approach relationships with a great deal of caution. In the org, you don't get many chances - that is, once you start heading down that dating road, you might end up married in six months. So I have discovered that I tend to be super-alert to find signs that the relationship is not right, so that I can bail before I hit the concrete wall.
My biggest challenge has been just being cool and not thinking everything out 25 moves in advance. I have to remember that no one is going to force me to get married. I'm not doomed to a miserable life because I happened to pick a little too soon.
Try to live in the present. Obviously, think about the future and where you're heading, but don't obsess. Enjoy the relationship for what it is, not what you fear it might become. If it doesn't work out, no big deal. Be honest with yourself, but don't fret too much about where things are headed.
Hope that helps! :-)
SNG
has anyone received this e-mail and what do you think about it?.
http://www.jwreform.org/index.html.
swalker
I agree that trying to reform the organization is long shot, but let's take this in context, guys. The fact that this site exists is itself amazing. Further, it is well-written and would appeal to reasonable Witnesses. Even if a reader does not take the plunge and decide to support the cause, it certainly would become food for thought.
I believe the organization is splintering exactly because of this type of thing. Some are getting fed up and just leaving. Others are trying to reform (probably a futile effort). Others are digging in. But the presence of different factions means the presence of different ideas, and that, at least, is a good thing. Even if the organization never reforms, those differing ideas will filter through and possibily effect individual members. And in that way, good will have been accomplished.
So more power to them, I say.
SNG
yep, it's true.
while giving his usual spiel about how true christians should struggle, he says that some of those who have left the truth, say they never felt better.. .
the answer: "they don't have to stuggle anymore.".
Apostate websites were mentioned probably 10 times in last weeks assembly
Yeah, baby! That means we're getting through! :-) SNG <------------------ waves at the Witnesses who are disobediently reading this site
happy sunday, everyone!
this week we will be breaking from our normal tack of examining scientific evidence, and instead consider the issue from a different perspective.
now, when you consider the number of animal species in the world today, it is clear that there are literally millions more species than could ever have fit into noah's ark.
Hi hooberus,
I wasn't making any of the dogmatic assertions that you claim. Change from one species to many clearly falls under the phenomenon called "evolution." If you wish to distinguish between such microevolution and macroevolution, you may. If you further wish to draw the line somewhere and say that microevolution can progress no further than this point, then feel free to do so.
The point of my article was mainly to show that if one accepts the flood account, then one must logically accept evolution - at the very least, speciation or microevolution.
I believe that the acceptance of microevolution will open a person's mind up to clearer, more rational thinking. Where a person goes from there is his or her own choice, but I think such a person will be better equipped to examine the evidence with an open mind.
A few of the logical next steps are, if I accept that evolution can occur within one basic kind:
SNG
song 217.
10 min: local announcements.
selected announcements from our km.
ozziepost:
Now how the hell do you offer the magazines "informally"?? Surely you offer them or you don't? What's this informal thingy? Duh.
I think that's when you untuck your shirt and rough up your hair a little and use slang and stuff. As opposed to offering the magazines formally, in which case you have your lawyer send a Request For Magazine Acceptance by certified mail. Please refer to the following examples:
Informal: "Yo, what up, dawg? You wanna check out these mags? They're the shit!"
Formal: "Dear fellow bus traveler: My client is pleased to propose a contractual religious relationship to you, which you can accept by returning the enclosed RFMA form by certified mail. Please be aware that failure to accept this offer will be construed by God as acknowledgement that you agree to be destroyed at Armageddon. We wish you all the best. Sincerely, Law Offices of Schmidt and Schmidt"
Hope that helps! :-)
SNG
yep, it's true.
while giving his usual spiel about how true christians should struggle, he says that some of those who have left the truth, say they never felt better.. .
the answer: "they don't have to stuggle anymore.".
LOL @ comments from RunningMan and willyloman.
Interesting that the Society felt the need to broach the subject. It seems that their normal tale of sadness and wrecked lives for people who leave is being seen through, so they are switching tactics. I'm willing to bet this is because the Internet has made it much more possible for individual Witnesses to have private contact in some form with people who have left, and the reality is becoming impossible to supress.
You can run from information, but you can't hide it from others. Not anymore. :-) :-) :-)
SNG
happy sunday, everyone!
this week we will be breaking from our normal tack of examining scientific evidence, and instead consider the issue from a different perspective.
now, when you consider the number of animal species in the world today, it is clear that there are literally millions more species than could ever have fit into noah's ark.
Shameless btt in case any of my regular readers missed it...
happy sunday, everyone!
this week we will be breaking from our normal tack of examining scientific evidence, and instead consider the issue from a different perspective.
now, when you consider the number of animal species in the world today, it is clear that there are literally millions more species than could ever have fit into noah's ark.
Michael,
Thanks for your comments.
Seems to me like more than a few animals were on the ark. Thinking there is not or that there couldn't be is like assuming that the fruit from the tree of good and bad were apples.
Obviously, the account leads us to believe that "more than a few" animals were on the ark. However, surely you would admit that the ark could never contain the number of species that exist in the world today. That is the crux of the issue.
Even keep animals hungry without eating and pooping ect.
Again, this line of reasoning was only there to illustrate the impossibility of having a great number of animals on board. The idea is that, while there are obviously physical limits to the number of animals on board, there would have been other limits imposed. In the end, though, it really doesn't matter, unless you are suggesting that there were actually millions of animals on board.
In the end, though, if you resort to the "it was magic" argument, then you'll never have to worry about any kind of logical inconsistencies. Is it impossible to fit an elephant into a phone booth? Not if God does it! Magic! See, no problems! Since magic defies logic, it is not a useful argument in the real world.
SNG
happy sunday, everyone!
this week we will be breaking from our normal tack of examining scientific evidence, and instead consider the issue from a different perspective.
now, when you consider the number of animal species in the world today, it is clear that there are literally millions more species than could ever have fit into noah's ark.
jaffacake,
I do recognise however that a minority of Christians do take the Bible literally and do not believe in evolution. Please don't paint us all with the same brush.
I realize that many Christians accept evolution and take the Bible with a grain of salt, and I greatly respect them. My post was addressing a literal reading of the Bible. That is, if you accept the flood account as the Bible portrays it, then evolution must be true.
Q,
I don't think the Bible supports the idea of a localized flood. It says the highest mountains were covered to a height of 15 cubits. If you can describe a way for this to be true, and still have the flood be local, tell me.
SNG
