nowadays, they just announce that "so-and-so is no longer one of jehovahs witnesses", so there is a lot of wiggle room in that wording. technically, you may not actually have been disfellowshipped but just "DA'd yourself by your actions" (a phrase my family used on me for years).this would get them around the technicality of actually talking to you, and the end result would be the same anyway. actually, if they don't technically DF you, but just use the "DA'd by your actions" approach, i doubt you'd have any room for appeal either as you would in a regular DFing case.
doogie
JoinedPosts by doogie
-
63
PLEASE REPLY ASAP!!! Disfellowshiped without a meeting with elders?!?!?!
by chok in.
i was trying to fade, and thought i had done so successfully for the past 18months.. i have just received a call from my dad saying it will be announced tomorrow that i have been disfellowshipped... can they do this???.
chok.
-
-
-
22
Are there benefits to DAing Yourself?
by zenpunk ini've been away from this board for a really long time, since then i've made huge progress in my recovery from life in the jw world thanks to some professional help.
now i am at the point where i just don't want to be anywhere near anyone remotely associated with the organization.
my parents no longer speak to my husband and i, but when i do have to interact with my jw inlaws i feel incredibly sick.
-
-
doogie
So - has anyone here ever DA'd themselves after being out for almost 9 years and, was there any personal satisfaction to doing so?
well, i can kind of answer your question. i had been out for about 4 years when i DA'd. like you, my family didn't have any contact with me anyway, so i wasn't exactly risking that. when i was active and i heard that someone had DA'd i was always intrigued as to why. i always assumed that they were doing something "wrong" and didn't want to get caught, but it still made me wonder. (i know, they don't differentiate DA and DF anymore, but when i DA'd they did).
but more than anything, i just felt better personally afterwards. i had ended that chapter as completely as possible and now no one in my old congregation would wonder what my status was. i actually kind of hoped for that 'uproar' that you mentioned but i doubt anything like that actually happened (they probably just said, "Who?").
so, anyway, for me there was personal satisfaction in knowing that i had closed the door intentionally rather than waiting for the elders to do it to me by DFing me at some point in the future (i was completely inactive so it wasn't like they had any 'dirt' pending, but from what i understand, the elders are making an effort to contact inactive people now...of course, that has nothing to do with JCs ). i also took satisfaction in that i chose to remove my '1' from the JW column and add 1 to the DA'd column (i know, i know...they don't publish any list like that. but you know that bethel keeps a list of who [or at least how many] have DA'd).
-
38
Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?
by hooberus in.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
-
-
doogie
From what I know it is a part of all-encompassing theory of evolution.
many do look at it that way, but belief in evolution is not incompatible with a belief that god was the initial cause.
-
38
Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?
by hooberus in.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
-
-
doogie
I don’t think that evolutionary theory has passed the first step of explaining how life came out of inanimate substances before we ever get into the discussion of natural selection.
you're right, it hasn't. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!
evolutionary theory deals with how lifeforms have changed over time, not how life began. if it's "ID vs. Evolution", let's keep it at that and not confuse it with "ID vs. Abiogenesis" which is completely different.
-
-
-
doogie
BD:
i hear ya. i think i understand where you're coming from.
I just don't like arrogant people that use their scientific knowledge to hammer people anymore than the religious zealots.
this is a really good way of putting it. arrogance is never an attractive personality trait. it's too bad that many in the scientific community exhibit this character weakness, but for me, i see it as a problem that some individuals have rather than a point against the field itself. you know what i mean? it's just like our parents used to say: hate the actions, not the field of learning. (or something like that)
-
-
-
doogie
BD:
i agree with your post to an extent. especially with regards to condescending attitudes in the scientific community. but this part:
the hard sciences have a pretty good track record with their own version of "new light" where theories are either reversed or trashed altogher when new data comes in.
do you have any examples in particular of this type of fluctuation in scientific theory? i agree wholeheartedly that the sciences are in a constant state of flux, but i see that as a good thing. rather than assert the absoulte truth of today's theories, the scientific community welcomes challenges to the existing concepts and those few scientists (which in itself attests to the relative strength of current theories) that can overthrow the current "dogma" are hailed as geniuses and given nobel prizes. it is true that theories are rehashed from time to time and contested continually, but the vast majority of scientific theory changes very little. in what i've come across, i've seen very few scientific theories that have been "reversed or trashed altogether" especially within the last couple of centuries.
i'm not trying to be difficult, i'm just interested in any examples of this that you were thinking of in particular.
-
62
Bad examples of intelligent design?
by gringojj in.
i am trying to think about examples of animals that would be bad for the intelligent design theory.
i like to use the ostrich because it has wings but doesnt fly.
-
-
doogie
all the fun parts are next to, touching, or inside the most disgusting parts.
-
25
A special Christian message to terrorists.......
by WingCommander inlondon has my sincerest condolences on this great day of tragedy.
during this difficult time, it is easy to become full of hate and want vengence.
i know all about those feelings, and i remember in the bible somewhere where it states, "vengence is mine, sayith the lord.
-
-
doogie
nicely said tetra. i'm gonna save that one.
-
27
Why is chalk white?
by Qcmbr ini was reading some pro flood info and i came across an intriguing point regarding chalk - the fact that it is composed almost entirely of shells.
now i have no desire to start a pro flood blah blah debate.
this is a sincere non religious question for our marine biologists / geologists - why is chalk white and not layered with silt and sand?
-
-
doogie
Hi I wasn't referring to blackboard chalk - I was actually taking about the huge chalk deposits.If / as these are formed over millions of years how come they are so relatively pure?
chalk is super porous limestone. it's white because it's almost nothing but calcium carbonate. (wikipedia says 98%) so that accounts for its color. because it's so porous, it's continuously flushing out 'impurities' thus making it purer and whiter.
the only way chalk's color relates to its age is the whiter the chalk, the older it (probably) is. edited to add: i googled for the chemical composition of chalk and it seems that "calcium carbonate" and "chalk" are basically interchangeable with purity levels between 98 and 99.9%. Q, if by your question you really meant why is calcium white, i think we're actually moving into chemistry, which i'll have to leave to someone else. -
100
Can you refute these?
by Mary Phooty in1. are jesus and michael the archangel really the same person?.
one of the most peculiar of the wtss teachings is their assertion that jesus is actually michael the archangel.
" in acts 10:19-20, this "impersonal force" considers himself to be a person.
-
-
doogie
Those options are not mutually exclusive.
haha. you make a good point.