Welcome Benjie: Give us some details. I take it you were both baptized, no? If you were, you might expect some "shepherding" calls so they can try to reel you back in. There may be some discussions. If you didn't have too many ties on the inside, it will be quite easy for you to say "thanks but, no thanks". You can assume that they'll make an announcement of some sort letting the congregation know that you have disassociated yourselves. That means, they'll shun you on the streets. If you've been retreating for a while, it won't bother you much. If it causes you problems, we're here to help.
Posts by Etude
-
25Hello
by Benjie inthis is my first time now that i'm registered.
i've been reading here for a while though.. it's been a long journey to get here, but now i have turned my back on everything i've known for such a long time, but a new road lies ahead, and this is one of the first steps on it.. .
-
-
-
546
non believers what if your wrong ?
by unstopableravens ini do not wish to debate anything here like i have said in the past i have much respect for most on this forum (believers and non believers) i am simply wondering if the atheist or non god believers every worry about what if your wrong?
it seems that many who were jw for so many years attach jehovah/yahweh with the watchtower and since the wt is wrong than god does not exist.
i ask this question only because i care about people and salvation thats why i want to help as many as possable come out of this cult,and since i truly believe in god i dont know what is in the cinscience of those who dont.
-
-
Etude
" We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. "
OK. If God ordanined the process of evolution, then that's not the God of the Bible or of the Qur'an or of any other ancient holy book. The reason is: they (those holy books) point to a different God that created the heavens and the Earth and an original man. The method of creation is quite specific in those books and it ain't evolution.
-
546
non believers what if your wrong ?
by unstopableravens ini do not wish to debate anything here like i have said in the past i have much respect for most on this forum (believers and non believers) i am simply wondering if the atheist or non god believers every worry about what if your wrong?
it seems that many who were jw for so many years attach jehovah/yahweh with the watchtower and since the wt is wrong than god does not exist.
i ask this question only because i care about people and salvation thats why i want to help as many as possable come out of this cult,and since i truly believe in god i dont know what is in the cinscience of those who dont.
-
-
Etude
"i dont believe there much that can get an atheist to believe if they dont want to"
Didn't the words in my post (304) give you a clue about how much I wanted to believe, how much I yearned for what was promised? Why wouldn't anyone want paradise and peace? I didn't start out not wanting to believe and it's not that I don't want to believe now. But, no. The basic reality of life is something entirely different. Even wanting to believe won't make the facts go away. I may end up being wrong. But that doesn't mean that you're alternative will automatically be righy.
-
546
non believers what if your wrong ?
by unstopableravens ini do not wish to debate anything here like i have said in the past i have much respect for most on this forum (believers and non believers) i am simply wondering if the atheist or non god believers every worry about what if your wrong?
it seems that many who were jw for so many years attach jehovah/yahweh with the watchtower and since the wt is wrong than god does not exist.
i ask this question only because i care about people and salvation thats why i want to help as many as possable come out of this cult,and since i truly believe in god i dont know what is in the cinscience of those who dont.
-
-
Etude
" i really just want to get an idea if athiest worry about the afterlife i do not wish to force my beliefs on anyone. "
Why would an atheist worry about an afterlife? That's like worrying about an after-smoking-a-joint or worrying about after-going-to-sleep or worrying after a great orgasm. Being an atheist is liberating that way. You don't really give a shit about what happens because you agree with Salomon that being a live dog is better than being a dead lion. Life's uncertain. Eat your dessert first.
If God were to ask me why I stopped believing in him, I would answer: Because I was wrong:
You see God, I had no reason to believe in you in the first place. I did because I was taught to by everyone else ever since I was a child. I thought about you a lot in those years, but I never really heard from you.
There were times when I really needed you and I guess you were too busy. How could I possibly know that you were there? Then, I learned a whole lot of new stuff. And every ounce of intellect that you gave me showed me that the more I looked for you the less and less there was to find. Sorry God, but it seems you hid from me.
At a time when I really believed in you and dedicated my life to you, you allowed my world to crumble as it was battered by the greatest deception I had ever experienced. I lost my friends, my family and my way of life as I knew it. You gave me the cruelest gift of all: The loss of the very best hope and innocence and goodness I had come to expect. You made me that way.
Even so, there was always something in my feelings that wanted to talk to someone greater than anyone around. Once, I went to a very old forest in Main. I sat in the penetrating silence and had the sensation you were there. Later, I watched from a beach in California and soaked in a spectacular sunset and thought you were there with me or among the fiery clouds. Another time, I looked at a bead of water on a bright flower on one of the greyest days I'd ever seen and thought I saw your reflection. But it wasn't you. It was just something I was feeling.
Yes, I'm made wonderfully. But you never really showed me how wonderful I can be. You left me to my own to figure it all out. You left the entire world on its own to figure it out. Then I realized that you were never there to begin with.
Man this rum in my snifter is pretty damned good! Thanks mother nature.
-
14
How Did The Watchtower Reason Away Their United Nation Membership Card? Poor Malawi Brothers!
by ÁrbolesdeArabia inthe brothers in malawi died, sisters were rapped for not buying a government card which the watchtower organization did for itself with the united nations (ngo status, card carryning members of the wild beast!).
why did the governing body decide it was ok to carry a united nations identification card for the watchtower society as a whole?
this makes no sense, shows how little the governing body and the "dark corporation behind the organization" does not care for jesus christ's little sheep.
-
-
Etude
I may have to go back and re-read the account in CoC. But, my take on the "Mexico" thing wasn't about the "brothers" getting government assistance. It was about certifying that they had "served" in the Military, as required by the Mexican constitution. The "card" was acquired "purchased" via a bride (mordida) from your local neighborhood army center. Why was the card so critical? My understanding is that without it, it's difficult to find certain types of work or even get a passport to travel. What the Society did covering their two-faced decision was deeply, deeply criminal.
-
112
Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?
by metatron ini've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.
changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!
after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.
-
-
Etude
Isn't it ironic that we can suspect so much about the organization and the IRS be so clueless? They have forensic accountants that can dig up long trails laundering and financial murk. I guess we have to come up with another conspiracy where whoever controls the WTS has an inside person in the IRS to cover up their trail. C'mon!
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
Jeffro: Sorry, but I thought that I had addressed your point subsquently. The statement "still stands", is not very conducive for a discussion. I would have expected that you'd address my arguments. Perhaps I'm confused, but your mention of "creationists" seemed to be addressing me somehow (by then it was a limited conversation) and I'm not one of those. Neither is Wilson. So......
NewChapter: " Disproving anything that Dawkins might say does nothing to disprove evolution or other scientific advancements. " I guess this is where our conversation derailed. I don't think I ever said anything to remotely indicate that Evolution is something to be disproved. I repeat -- the issue, at least the one I thought we were discussing, had nothing to do with the veracity of Evolution. The issue, from my perspective is with the reasoning and conjectures Dawkins uses to suggest a process that might be responsible for something he has indentified, namely the delusion of God in humans as a consequence of Natural Selection, carried in memes and via extended phenotypes, blah, blah, blah, and the fact that other scientists are challenging his proposals.
Where am I going with this? I'm attempting to evaluate Dawkins' postulates in terms of other reasoning from scientists, yes evolutionists, who take great pains to point out poor conclusions from Dawkins as they criticize him. I just don't understand why to you that is not significant. It is significant if you're going to decide which scientist you're going to believe. It's not enough to believe in Evolution. You also need to know that there's a trustworthy consensus of scientis who agree as to HOW it happened. Otherwise, one is left with a credulous attitude similar to that of theists. You'll believe evolution regardless of explanations. That is not why I believe in it.
With all due respect, I suppose that if you read all of those scientists that propose different approaches to support Evolution, you'd exhibit the same attitude: " It is an interesting idea, and makes for provacative conversation " for each and every one of them. Where does that leave you? The point of searching is to sift through the all the manure and find the pony buried in that pile. Otherwise, let's just kick back, turn on the TV and tune in to another episode of "Jersey Shore".
-
112
Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?
by metatron ini've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.
changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!
after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.
-
-
Etude
Aussie Oz: "If I was running a publishing corporation that makes its money (most but not all) from printing and selling books and magazines, the age of digital would make me restructure."
I know you said more, but that one statement, made mo go, Whoa! It never passed my mind (well, maybe I considered it briefly) that the WTBTS was running a corportaion to make money from printing. I worked in the printing department and I did a brief estimate in my head of the cost of running a single press (the paper rolls [depending on quality], the ink, the plates, maintenance supplies, the power, the loaded labor, etc). Believe me, 15 cents per magazine (in those days) barely coverd the cost even when the labor was 100% free. No. I think that for a good period of time, the WTBTS was receiving generous donations from many sources.
One thing that didn't occur to me before is that the donations are a function fo the economy. I can't imagine worse economic times that the ones recently in terms of extra spending cash from the side of publishers, even from loyal big donors JW donors, who probably belong to an older generation. I think that what's happening now is a delayed effect of the previous years. On the one hand, they have accomplished some attrition due to technology. But on the other, there's less revenue to account for. That's another reason that tells me they're seeking a major change to secure their future.
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
NewChapter: Well, the point of "jumping" on Dawkins ideas is not new. In the research I gathered, I found lots of writers and scientists "jumping" on Dawkins and making all kinds of criticism for the way he employs his deductions. These people are not theists and I believe their aim is to correct an idea and to further a common cause, that of Evolution and Natural Selection.
You seem to be saying to me (and by inference to those other writers and scientist) to lay off poor Dawkins because he has done so much. I had some indication that a few of Dawkins critics are not just fellow scientists but also friends. The scientific discussion or disagreement, in my opinion, needs to be dispassionate. Their personal affection or camaraderie for Dawkins is irrelevant to their interpretation of science. And, they probably won't stop the criticism.
I'm not concern, since I've seen to it to be informed, whether the world will fall apart if one of Dawkins' ideas is proven wrong. I won't come apart if one of them is proven right either. In the former case, life will go on as usual and in the latter, I'll feel glad that my personal understanding has been adjusted to a more accurate interpretation. At least I will know the reasons why.
But, I disagree with you in one respect: Dawkins does have a quasi-apostolic following that borders on religious fervor. I'm not saying that anyone here has displayed that but, on an interview he did with Bill Maher, Dawkins spoke of a "convert" corner on his web site where people post testimonials of their turnaround from religion. His website sells T-shirts and Scarlet-A pendants, among other paraphernalia. Some of Dawkins' appearances resemble protestant revivals. I don't pay attention to much of that because Dawkins has also received the most vilest and heinous wishes and death threats I've ever seen; and from religious people.
Nevertheless, I find him one sided in his assessment that religion is at fault for everything. On thefirst page of the preface to his "Delusion" book he states: "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian Partitions ...no Northern Ireland troubles...no persecution of Jews...no honour killings..." I would love that and think it possible if I lived on another planet. But what he fails to mention are the other things we can imagine the world without, like the Stalin's, the Pol Pot's of the world and other individuals and governments who killed millions without the benefit of religion. To top it off, he avoids to explain how this killing capability of the human animal is a necessary and discriminate result of Natural Selection as opposed to the effect of a religious delusion, which the atheist killers contradict. All of that is a matter for each of us to explore and really does not have any weight in our discussion.
Jeffro: Your point will continue to stand -- all by itself.
Terry : Sorry for not acknowledging you earlier. " The first thing I had to learn was that knowledge can be COUNTER-intuitive. The layman reliance on how things ought-to-be is naive and self-defeating. Strict adherence to facts and methodology is more revealing than any demand that things be the way we expect them to be. "
I think your friend is mostly right, but I object to the underlined phrase. What is a "layman"? In the context ofthe statement and your description of your friend, it sounds to me like the definition: one who is "not a professional". Given in that frame, I presume that your friend would agree that aside from Paleontology he is as naive and self-defeating in anything that remains. In that case, I would disagree with him. Just because he may not be able to work the intricacies of the financial markets, it doesn't mean he can't come to comprehend them and even use it to his advantage, without an Economics degree. That's a long way from Paleontology. That this is possible is why I like the last sentence of your citation. "Facts and methodology" are of great advantage to your friend and to you and me. They are not there to confirm our expectations. They are there to help us reach an end, whether that end is an answer or just a better question.
While it may have appeared so, I don't think I spoke much of Biology on this thread. I attempted to speak to a failure of process that requires a burden of proof. While I did study Logic and Mathematics, I don't think it was the fact that I studied that affords me any authority. It is the fact that I can think. So can other people, as my own experience shows, having known individuals with little formal education who have brilliant minds.
-
112
Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?
by metatron ini've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.
changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!
after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.
-
-
Etude
The saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" or "if it's working, don't screw with it" is indicative that it ain't working. They're changing because they have to. The prophesies and saintly structures they've built have come back to haunt them. I think somebody in there (the GB) knows they need to move in another direction.
I don't see the organization being strapped for cash. What I do see is that they realize that their contribution base has been notably reduced. They still have loads of money. They're getting leaner and meaner financially by divesting of property they no longer utilize. In a way, it is like any other business.
As I recall, even before the GB came into existence in the early 70s, some of the individuals who were the signatories and the legal representatives of the different corporations and organizations of the Jehovah's Witnesses (the International Bible Students Association, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania; the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc; Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses, New York; Kingdom Support Services, Inc., New York) included and/or now include individuals who were not of the anointed. My perception is that some of those people were chosen because they either had some business experience or had credentials that made them suitable to be signatories or legal representatives. I don't think that meant that the visible heads (either the presidents at one time nor the GB now) ever lost ultimate control. So, I don't think there's anyone behind the GB pulling strings.
But perhaps now, with the move to the GB as the FDS there may be a greater degree of control, even if they still use non-anointed or R&F individuals to represent them. For the Mormons, it's simple. You essentially become an "anointed" when you reach the higher echelon of "priesthood". Reaching the top layer or the highest order of their priesthood , the Melchizedek order, where I suspect the major shots are called from, is what I imagine would equate with the GB of JWs. It just seems that that kind of level is more attainable in the Mormon Church because to some degree the requirements can be identified. The GB selection is much more mysterious. The change is afoot. I think they see it. I think they're working on it.