this site is great, i have been lurking for a while now.
but i can’t get reinstated and have used some of the advice already given.. i was df’d many months ago and go to all the meetings and do all the preparation for the meetings, but the jc committee keep refusing me.
tomorrow at the clam meeting i am puting yet another letter in and will be called for another dreadful jc meeting.. 1. what can i say to the elders to show that i am truly repentant?.
You are supposed to wait six months before asking to get back. If you ask sooner or too frequently this may be interpreted as a bad attitude. Probably best to wait a few months between letters, and always be very differential, never express impatience, and always a knowledge you were in the wrong.
Then when you're reinstated, don't get caught again!
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
You get different kinds of fur.
You get fox fur, beaver fur, ankie fur...
Hold on, what's an ankie fur?
Fur tae blow yer nose! Silly
we like to think we are logical and have good reasons for for our beliefs.
no more so than when it comes to our reasons for rejecting the truth claims of jws.
we reject their version of history, such as the date of the fall of jerusalem, because it doesn't agree with the historical evidence.
Yes my main point is, for example, that going to university is much more likely to result in someone leaving JWs than, say, discussing 607 with them.
Making friends outside JWs is much more likely to encourage them to leave that debating evolution with them.
People tend to adjust their beliefs and behaviour for social reasons, but they retrospectively explain those decisions in the language of logic and reason.
The reason this may be important for anyone who is interested in helping JWs out of the religion is that it may help focus on areas that work. Detailed doctrinal expositions may be more therapeutic for those who have already left than genuinely helpful toward the goal of empowering people to leave.
The pyschology of decision making would seem to suggest that areas to focus on would be demonstrating to JWs that very many people are already successfully leaving JWs. If teachings are discussed it may be best to focus heavily on the fact that authoritative experts in relevant fields refute the specific claims made by JWs about history, origin of life, blood, the state of the world, and so on, rather than getting involved in detailed discussions involving evidence and logic.
Because when it comes to persuasion, the evidence shows that social proof and sources of authority are much more likely to convince people than detailed arguments involving evidence and logic. Maybe some find this depressing, but it is a fact. Maybe some people can't abide the idea that people should be more influenced by social cues than by carefully constructed arguments they may devise.
(By the way, just to say, I do realise the irony of this situation where I have defended my position, which essentially says you should not appeal to evidence and logic if you wish to be convincing, by appealing to evidence and logic. So I fully expect that my argument here may not convince anyone, thereby proving itself.)
we like to think we are logical and have good reasons for for our beliefs.
no more so than when it comes to our reasons for rejecting the truth claims of jws.
we reject their version of history, such as the date of the fall of jerusalem, because it doesn't agree with the historical evidence.
Viviane good post, except it's my side of the argument that is supported by experts in the subject of decision making, and others on the thread who are relying on their own experience.
"If we think that we have reasons for what we believe, that is often a mistake"
Prof Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University
if you were a computer programmer and you were to create a simulated automated world, that would constantly evolve and self run after initial designs.
first you would have to code the rules, laws, and core elements of this world.
while this is being coded, the program is not run yet, so none of it exists.
If everything we know is "simulation" then what is the meaning of "real" in this context? What is the distinction?
Zizek says physicists say quantum physics means that reality is not totally filled. It's like a computer game where the background is not defined unless you zoom in. Only when you zoom in does the program decide how to fill out the picture. Reality is said to exhibit a similar phenomenon where its subatomic constituents are not fully defined unless observed. I don't know how accurate that is, but again it makes you wonder about the usefulness of the distinction between reality and simulation.
Perhaps the main implication of viewing the world in this way is that it seems to make the presence of some sort of God like programmer more natural.
many here seem to believe that the position of agnosticism is somehow more reasonable than theism or atheism.
nonsense!
it is a misconception to believe that belief or non-belief in the existence of god/s are the two extremes which glare at each other over the fence of agnosticism.
Why? The proposition is that existence and non-existence may be human categories that do not apply to God. We have no trouble realising that questions such as "what colour is God?" or "where does God live?" may reflect misunderstanding. How can we be sure that the question "does God exist?" doesn't reflect a similar confusion?
"That sounds stupid to me", doesn't constitute an argument.
We don't expect a dog to understand calculus. Is there any good reason to expect that humans should be able to grasp the divine? Or to put it another way, if human reason is unable to construct a satisfying conception of God, does that in itself prove that God is unviable? Or does it tell us about the limitations of human rationality?
many here seem to believe that the position of agnosticism is somehow more reasonable than theism or atheism.
nonsense!
it is a misconception to believe that belief or non-belief in the existence of god/s are the two extremes which glare at each other over the fence of agnosticism.
Argumentum ad lapidem, again.
A humanistic rational approach cannot disprove apophatic conceptions of God, hence the resort to ridicule. Karen Armstrong is particularly good describing this approach to God.
many here seem to believe that the position of agnosticism is somehow more reasonable than theism or atheism.
nonsense!
it is a misconception to believe that belief or non-belief in the existence of god/s are the two extremes which glare at each other over the fence of agnosticism.
I think the article is saying the atheism of Dawkins for example is not very "interesting" in the sense that it lacks substance and does not engage with the most thoughtful expressions of theism. It doesn't mean to say it's boring in the sense that it would send you to sleep. Dawkins picks out, for example, the idea of God as a complex being to refute, ignoring thousands of years of theological reflection on the nature of God which either views him as a simple being or and being beyond being. His refutation therefore misses the mark and looks ill-informed about the subject. The idea that God does not exist and that he doesn't not exist. That human ontological categories cannot intelligibly be applied to God. We can appreciate that ascribing certain characteristics such as tallness to God might be mistaken. But what about the category of being itself? What if this is a misconceived way of formulating the question in relation to God?
we like to think we are logical and have good reasons for for our beliefs.
no more so than when it comes to our reasons for rejecting the truth claims of jws.
we reject their version of history, such as the date of the fall of jerusalem, because it doesn't agree with the historical evidence.
LoveUni JWs answer those points by saying 1) JWs were never definite about those dates 2) they never claimed to speak as prophets 3 ) if they made mistakes it was because they are imperfect men 4) the important thing is JWs have the truth and the details are not so important 5) where are you getting your information anyway - have you been listening to apostates? 6) I don't think this discussion is helpful spiritually 7) pray to Jehovah and read the Bible if you have doubts 8) I have tried to help you there is nothing more I can say to you if you don't accept Jehovah's help.
many here seem to believe that the position of agnosticism is somehow more reasonable than theism or atheism.
nonsense!
it is a misconception to believe that belief or non-belief in the existence of god/s are the two extremes which glare at each other over the fence of agnosticism.
This idea of atheism only appears to deal with a certain kind of God about whom specific claims are made. The kind of God JWs have. I don't think this definition of atheism takes negative theology into account. That God can exist and not-exist, or neither, without being bound by definitions. When I think of God I think of God in these terms, or not in these terms, as the case may be.
http://religiondispatches.org/way-beyond-atheism-god-does-not-not-exist/
The atheisms of most committed, principled atheists are often not more than mirror images—inversions—of the theisms they negate. In On Interpretation, Aristotle wrote, “Affirmations and their corresponding negations are one in the same knowledge”; therefore, one can discern from many atheisms their corresponding affirmative theologies.
Turner also writes that, very often, the theisms attacked by atheists are not very interesting; therefore, the atheisms of most committed, principled atheists are not very interesting. Why this is so is not clear; perhaps it is because in many cases theism was abandoned before it was allowed time to develop into something of substance.
