Posts by Spook

10

Old-time Birthdays and Vaccinations (so I don't hijack PJ's anymore)

by yknot in

on pj's " /are-we-following-men " thread i asked him if he remembered celebrating b-day or receiving vaccines because he has been a jw for 63 years.. birthdays were officially banned in oct 1, 1951's qfr (see below at bottom of initial posting).

so if you were a jw before this took place please share your memories of this bygone era..... also if you remember getting vaccinated for the first time after the dec 15, 1952 qfr's and are willing to share your stories of both life during and after the ban i would be deeply grateful!

does anyone on the board have a faked acid vaccination mark or remember hearing stories about them from older jws?

Spook

It's wonderful to know that Christianity and Judaism both have their roots in pagan religions. Actually, almost every element of culture does.

29

Anyone been wiretapped, burglarized, otherwise spied on by elders/wbts?

by avishai in

jw
friends

i want to know what criminal extent they have gone to to "get" you.

i know of them spying, shadowing, etc.

to get their way.

Spook

They stole my youth and dignity, does that count?

(Luckily I found the latter, it was hidden under my backbone.)

80

Are we following men?

by jookbeard in

jw
friends

schipper, you never answered the post's on your previous topic, and you go and open another topic, go back to your previous topic please.

Spook

For all seriousness to believers, those in the bible who actually were "following God" rather than "following men" are portrayed consistantly as those who:

Disobey, call out and challenge the religious authority figures. Let me ask you this: In WT theology EVERY SINGLE LEADER CLASS HAS FAILED, and at that point "true Christians" had to disobey these men. The judges, kings, priests and lineage of disciplies/early church all FAILED. What makes you think that isn't the way it always works?

These individuals could be identified as failues because...

1. They had an inflated sense of their own importance.

2. They extended their authority too far into individual lives.

3. They created new "rules" and acted as if they came from God. Beards anybody?

There is no "faithful and discreet class" in the bible. The point of this illustration is to identify qualities which distinguish individuals based on their actions - namely spreading the gospel - not a METAPHYSICAL CLASS.

Spiritual leaders in the bible were always identified by OTHERS for their unique deeds. Only the wicked had to advertise for themselves.

35

Did God give us free will?

by ldrnomo in

if we do have free will, what does that mean?.

.

ld.

Spook

Oh, and the Garden of Eden story has nothing to do with free will. You are inventing that to make it match a modern theology.

35

Did God give us free will?

by ldrnomo in

if we do have free will, what does that mean?.

.

ld.

Spook

(Spook, where have you been?)

Hey leavingwt! I took a new job in June and was too busy to have much online time. Here I am again!

Here is the dilemma of "free will" or determinism so we all can stop talking around each other. The existance or otherwise of a deity plays less in this conversation than many want it to. Their are theists and atheists all along this spectrum.

People in general interpret an agent (usually a human) causing something as different than an object causing something. For example, saying John caused the newspaper to be on the table is taken as an end in itself. Saying the wind caused this does not. Upon further questioning, one may want to know how the wind did this. Of John, one may say John "decided" to put the newspaper on the table.

This is the kind of "free will" that nobody contends: Namely, people do that which they desire, all things considered. This view of "desire" can be as broad as "philosophical contemplation of alternatives" or as narrow as "habits / instincts."

The problem is not accounting for "decisions." This is a question for microeconomics and psychology, and is well studied in natural science. The philosophical problem is accounting for desires.

If you believe that desires are metaphysical uncaused ends in themselves, then you may believe in some kind of metaphysical libertarianism. If you believe that human desires can be accounted for by other causes, then the concern is that eventually some "cause" was random. By extension, the end result of any causal chain which includes a random cause is itself random. The concern is that all human action seems to be either (A) Determined or (B) random.

Strict theological "free willers" are those who believe that individuals are responsibly causal for their desires, regardless of the environmental or genetic influences involved. This is problematic, since if desire has no explanation it seems to be random. If in a theological system a persons decisions are based off of randomly distributed desires then it seems irrational for a deity to hold them accountable. It would be akin to salvation being doled out by the random distribution of drawing straws or "eenie-meenie-minie-moe." Believing metaphysical "will" is something spiritual and apart from the bilogical being does not solve the problem. It only regresses a level to the causal process of why certain individuals would get certain souls.

To me, I find that even though it appears that desires are naturally determined, an individual agent is so supremely unique that decisions can be viewed by extension as supremely unique and completely illustrative of character. This approximates the same utility in justice theories where-by we can hold people accountable for their actions.

I like this better than free will. Because when John kills his wife, we can say "John is the kind of person who can kill a person, all things considered." Not leaving us with either "Anyone would do the same given John's circumstances" or else "John made a bad decision." This informs the rest of society what we ought to do in order to either protect ourselves from John or else what we need to do to rehabilitate John.

35

Did God give us free will?

by ldrnomo in

if we do have free will, what does that mean?.

.

ld.

Spook

No, and we didn't get it from nature either. We don't have "free will" if you bother to define it rigorously.

It think we have something which in the philosophical literature is called "agent causation." This is a compromise position between "free will" and strict determinism. It's compatible with what many people on the streets mean by free will and it is compatible with most theories of justice.

80

Are we following men?

by jookbeard in

jw
friends

schipper, you never answered the post's on your previous topic, and you go and open another topic, go back to your previous topic please.

Spook

Yes, you are following ordinary humans...particularly poorly educated elderly anglo-saxon males living in social and intellectual isolation.

God, were he to exist, would not need a human intermediary. And if he chose one, he could direct them with sufficient clarity to have a theology with no history of mistakes.

Yet, your theology has a history of mistakes. So, either your God...

1. Does not exist.

2. Exists, but does not direct the governing body, in which case there is no reason beyond personal preference to follow their lead.

3. Exists, and insufficiently directs the governing body. In which case he is either not all powerful, or not all good or both. Assuming the disjunction that "If God were to exist, then he would be all powerful and all good" ipso facto your God does not exist.

4. God exists and sufficiently directs the governing body but they willfully resist this direction. In this case God is either (A) testing your obedience to humans who are willfully disobeying him, which would be irrational since were God to exist he would be rational and not want you to obey others more than him (therefore doesn't exist) (B) One of the following disjuntions must be true:

4a. God is not all powerful

4b God is not good

4c God is relatively unconcerned with people having accurate knowledge of him

40

"One of" Jehovah's Witnesses

by NeonMadman in

any thoughts on that particular phrasing?

personally, i think the wts uses it as another form of mind control.

by calling the individual "one of jehovah's witnesses," it lends a generic feel to the wording.

Spook

I'm annoyed when my midwest parents call other JW members "the friends." Why not "your friends" or "our friends?" I purposefully use the word church to refer to their kingdom hall. When they object, my retort:

"You want me to call your church the Kingdom Hall and not consider it a Church. I want you to call my car the blessed chariot. I want you to call my job the blissful calling. These pants? These aren't pants, they are sacred curtains of glory."

49

Did I commit the unforgivable sin?

by AlexHall in

when i was ex-communicated by the jw s a couple of years ago one thought ran through my mind.

had i commited the unforgivable sin?.

i have willingly divorced my wife without a scriptual reason for it.

Spook

I deny the holy spirit.

There, just a reminder.

148

Christians explain? Jews never believed in a Trinity even today so how/when did it start?

by Witness 007 in

jews for thousands of years have believed in their "one god" so i always wondered if in jesus time this was the view, how and when did the trinity start?

did jesus start it off?

are you saying jews were trinitarian?

Spook

JW's are correct that the "Trinity" was ana daptive development.

They are incorrect, however, that bible actually contains some "other" doctrine which supplants or supercedes it. It seems most issues in any given religion have always been contested.

In other words, JW's remove one cooked up doctrine and replace it with others. Good ol' switch-a-roo!