once upon a time there was a "kiai master" who trained his students how to knock people over - no touch - with purely the power of his chi.
how he came to think he actually had telekinetic powers - or how his students became accomplices in his self delusion - i have no idea.
but he was so convinced he could actually do these things he issued a challenge and put up $5,000 for any martial artist who could beat him.
That was an intersting watch, and read.
I'm curious about the follow up that explores the reaction of his students to his defeat? You'd think they'd suddenly see sense and abandon their master. But instead cognitive dissonance kicks in and they explain the defeat in various ways: it was bad energy at work; or did the master lose on purpose; is he trying to teach us an important lesson by deliberately losing? Their faith and devotion to the master is thus made even stronger!
Such is life.
for those interested, this is the video of mouthy's (grace) funeral from september 8, 2016. https://youtu.be/yvmiwo0ycds.
thanks again everybody for the kind words about her - she will be sorely missed by our family as i know she will be by many of you too!
.
Thanks that was good to see. Sorry for your loss, you have a nice family.
Is Nancy on the forum? I liked that.
reading konceptual's account of talking to cart 'witnesses' and it reminded me that when we left in '89 we thought the religion would do one of two things.
get more hardline, consequently lose members and eventually come to an end in some way.
or ease up on the members, fewer rules, less fs time, less meetings, just to keep them in.. all the recent apostate stuff, treatment of dfed kids and the hardline attitude to people who leave or try to fade has confused me, made me think they are harder on the r+f., but i don't think this is true.
Didn't they pretend for a while that the reason for dropping the Book Stody Groups was so families could have a Bible Study night instead? Do they even talk about that anyd more?
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
The other Homo became extinct
Sounds like a fragment from an anti-gay tirade. ;-)
reading konceptual's account of talking to cart 'witnesses' and it reminded me that when we left in '89 we thought the religion would do one of two things.
get more hardline, consequently lose members and eventually come to an end in some way.
or ease up on the members, fewer rules, less fs time, less meetings, just to keep them in.. all the recent apostate stuff, treatment of dfed kids and the hardline attitude to people who leave or try to fade has confused me, made me think they are harder on the r+f., but i don't think this is true.
Partly I'm thinking my eleven family members still in, one just a baby, may not make it out as it's getting easier to treat it like a church.
The churches that are emptying?
A lot of social science evidence suggests that the stricter a church is, the better it grows or retains members. Liberal churches that make few demands of adherents are in free fall decline in many countries.
I understand your concern that relaxing the requirements may make people more likely to stay. But the evidence suggests otherwise. The less churches ask of their followers the less likely their followers are to stay active.
However it's possible that relaxing the rules and requirements may make JWs more inclined to drift away rather than make a firm break. But their harder lines on education and shunning former members seem designed to stop that.
was doing some research this evening and i think ive found possibly the most damaging awake magazine issue the jw's could have printed.
april 22nd 1970. you can download the entire 1970 volume here: http://da-ip.getmyip.com:8080/pdf/old%20publications/?sort=d.
in this issue, the watchtower calls other religions on their hypocrisy for changing doctrine, upbeat music in their services, the clergy meddling in worldly affairs (un anyone?
Is this the magazine that lambasts the Catholic Church for changing its mind about eating fish on a Friday? Talk about straining the gnat and gulping the camel: organ transplants, vaccination, alternative service, generation, blood fractions...
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Ha! I just noticed that Holden made the mistake of making JWs out to be Young Earth creationists in that quote. He got a number of facts wrong about JWs, including mixing up Raymond and Fred Franz. Oops. Nevertheless he makes a number of good analytical observations. In particular his argument that JWs as a phenomenon represent the longing for certainty for some, in an increasinly uncertain and pluralistic world.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Ruby is correct, JW rationalism is a dominant aspect of JW ideology that academics have explored. This doesn't mean JWs reject the supernatural as such. But much more than comparable Chrisitan groups, JWs go out of their way to portray God and their religious life in rational terms. Rational arguments lie behind the rejection of hell and the Trinity, for example, as well as omnipresence and foreordination. They are cessationists, and even in Bible stories, they seek naturalistic explanations for "supernatural" events (such as the sun standing still). See for example the chapter "Rational Means to Rational Ends" in Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of A Contemporary Religious Movement by Andrew Holden. And his essay here:
The Witnesses pose a challenge to traditional religion, not least because they undermine the beliefs and rituals of established churches.[ix] Their rational system of beliefs equips them with strategies for recruitment and enables them to prove beyond all doubt that their theology is the word of God. The contrast between this and mystical religion manifests itself in visual imagery and styles of worship. Biblical texts are consulted not only for the substantiation of doctrines but as a blueprint for everyday conduct. Scriptural literalism is a rational means by which the world and its problems can be explained. The Witnesses believe that Jehovah created the world in seven days and intended Adam and Eve to live in a state of eternal happiness. However, it is as though they believe that since the fall, he has gone into semi- retirement until such time that humankind reaches the point of its own destruction. This is perhaps one of the reasons they spend little time in prayer.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Oh quickly on a (barely) related idea...
I saw a news story that a group of young men nearly died climbing Uluru (which I still want to call Ayres Rock even though it never has been in my lifetime) in Australia. The story had a number of interesting ethical dimensions. An emergency responder complained that the men had put themselves at unnecessary risk and considerable resources had been spent saving them. Moreover news reports also dwelt upon the fact that indigenous people now own the land and have asked people not to climb the rock. I feel two divergent and simultaneous gut reactions to this statement. One is that these indigenous people have been treated badly historically and this is just the latest of their rights being trampled on. Another is that nature, the world, and unique places should belong to all humanity, not one person or group. What right have they to say who goes there? Especially since their objection is based on superstition which I don't share. But should their beliefs be belittled as mere superstition just because I don't share it?
These are the kinds of complex ethical issues that hang on all sorts of historical, cultural, religious, social, economic (there's a complex economic dimension too to the stories I didn't even get into) and other factors that are impossibly difficult to reduce into a scientific utilitarianism.
What's Sam Harris's scientific answer to this issue I wonder? Should people be allowed to climb Uluru? Would be interesting to know the "correct" answer.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I got a bit side tracked with the whole Sam Harris thing. I hope to get back on to the topic of the purpose of life soon. I noticed nicolaou early in the thread thought he had the correct answer but didn't elaborate.
Thank you LisaRose for your comments on page 2. I agree with what you say, but I might make the small distinction that the sorts of things your mention are what tend to give life "meaning" in the moment (which is not to be belittled) but they may not yet fully constitute the meaning of life, or purpose as such. I don't know I am still thinking that through. I was searching for a copy of Crichton Smith reading his poem but I couldn't find it. I did find a really good interview though. His poetry may be "deep but narrow" in Edwin Morgan's words, but nevertheless a tremendous and "unpredicted voice of our kind". Both great Scots.
