*bump*
Awakened07
JoinedPosts by Awakened07
-
57
A New Theory of the Universe
by BurnTheShips inrobert lanza has literally written the book on stem cell science and delves into the issue of consciousness, reality, and a biocentric view of the universe.. .
while i was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently.
why does the universe exist?
-
-
-
9
Book Requests: Evolution
by MissingLink ini'm looking for the old 1967 did man get here by evolution or creation.
and the new 1985 life how did it get here, by evloution or by creation.. i'm putting together a nice summary of the lies, and i need the pictures from these books.. .
i saw the 1967 pdf was available at one time here.
-
-
Awakened07
I think this has already been done, at least when it comes to the 1985 version of it:
-
43
This is how JW's view the change in the book study
by TooBad TooSad ina very good friend of mine is convinced that the change in the book study arrangement.
is a sign that the end is so near and the jehovah made the change to emphasize the.
importance of the meetings.
-
-
Awakened07
His reasoning is that after 1/1/09, if you miss one of the meetings you now miss half of the meetings for the week!!!
Before you could miss one and still have 2 more meetings to go to but not now.
-They should start meeting once a year then. If you miss that meeting, why you'll miss 100% of the meetings that year!
-
20
Which is worse, Adam's sin, or God's reaction to his sin?
by Dirty Rat inwhen you look at all the pain and suffering in this world, and then wonder why god decided that mankind should pay for one man's sin, with interest on top of that, it's revolting.. no way can the added pain and suffering of billions of people equal the fault that adam did.. .
ps: this is jh .
-
-
Awakened07
God is Master of the Universe. As such, he has the right to make rules and HE gets to decide consequences of disobedience--and he also rightly defines what is right or wrong.
The Potmaker and His pots? A couple of people who - for some reason - were not 'pots':
Gen. 18:23, 27, 28, 32 (KJV)"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? [...]And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which [am but] dust and ashes: | Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for [lack of] five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy [it]. [...] And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy [it] for ten's sake."
Exd. 32:9-12, 14 (KJV) "And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it [is] a stiffnecked people: | Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. | And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? | Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. | And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
If someone today questions the God of the Bible, it's suddenly "God can do whatever he wants, you're just clay in his hands to do with as He likes." But in the Bible, certain people were allowed to argue with, and even change God's mind. Were Moses' ethics and sense of justice better than God's? How could he change God's mind and make Him regret His rash decision?
-
223
Diary of a thinking to return ex-Jw
by reniaa ini thought long and hard about posting this but the mis-information on this site finally persuaded me, i already accept many may not accept what i say on face value and get their appologist pens ready for making sure no pro-witness propaganda slips through the net on this site but here goes....... i've been on this forum for a few months my first post was about how i was thinking of returning to jw's and at my sisters recommendation to look at this site for both sides of the story before taking that step.. i faded from jw's 10/11 years ago now i left my hubby at the time divorced him to going on to have more relationships and kids, i was definately given the impression after asking on this site and with what i read that if i tried to return i might face df or at least a jc but definately a couple of elders questioning me over what i've been upto these last few years - none of these have happened.
i talked with an old jw friend (yes i do have then and she never shunned me quite happily accepted an offer of coffee from me and my asking for a chat) i told her i was interested in going back and was very frank about what i done in the last 10 years but not sure how returning was done now, she quite happily said she go ask for me to find out.. result!
she came back this week and said "all i had to do was goto meetings again" and an offer of a study was there for me if i wanted it to explore the open doubts that i had expressed i now had.. not quite the fire and brimstone welcome this site led me to believe would happen.. i will keep you posted with further updates if i feel the need to put them in future.. .
-
-
Awakened07
reniaa,
You've latched onto a couple opinions someone told you on JWD and came away with this:
"THIS SITE led me to believe would happen".
See the huge logic leap?
You've gone from a couple opinions to "THIS SITE".This is very typical of JWs and I was no different before. It's US against THEM. Black and white.
I have not said it would happen. Thus, not the entire site has said it.
This is a problem for us 'apostates'. If one 'apostate' does or says something that is wrong, it's automatically inferred that all 'apostates' think the same. It's... 'apostacist' (like 'racist').
'Apostates' are not one, homogeneous group of people. Not everyone here speaks for me. I don't speak for them. This is actually a difficult concept to some JWs. I had the same thought pattern when I first came here. I expected to find another 'group' I could join. But this is not a 'group'. Sure we have certain things in common and we can find friends here, but we're not a homologous group with the same thoughts and opinions.
I understand how you think, reniaa. I had the same mindset when I was fresh out, and maybe a year or two thereafter.
You'll have to decide what to do. I would personally perhaps rather have joined some hobby ring or club, but...
'Your mileage may vary' as they say. Some JW congregations are better places to be than others. But you will have to agree with what the Watchtower says, at least publicly. Of course you will be allowed to have doubts, but you will be advised to get over them by studying more. If you don't find the answer from those studies, you'll have to bury the concern in the back of your brain and hope it'll be answered in the end somehow, and not share it with others. Many Witnesses do this. For some, the amount of unanswered questions simply overflow the brain in the end.
If you go back, I wish you a good life for you and your children. I see how you would want to go back from a social perspective, getting friends and a common ground with other people, an anchor in life. I believe that can be found elsewhere and in places where you can be true to yourself and your own opinions, but that's perhaps not for everyone. Maybe that was a stupid comment; when I was active myself, I knew people called us brain washed. I knew people thought we were naive. I didn't see how I didn't think for myself. I said "But I do think for myself!". It's hard to see when you're in the middle of it. Inside that box, it certainly seems like one is free to think for oneself. There's just so much outside of that box of knowledge. Sometimes one or two items from outside the box seep in, and you see arguments from the world outside. You read the WTS books and magazines to find something to stuff the hole with. Sometimes it'll be successful, sometimes not. Then comes cognitive dissonance.
HOWEVER.
In day to day life, you'll mostly not experience this, so I shouldn't overemphasize it. You'll go door-to-door with a smiling, happy sister, you'll go to meetings and conventions and find many smiling, happy brothers and sisters, and you may most of the time feel happy yourself. Difficulties in everyday life will be attributed to 'this wicked system' and how you're being persecuted by Satan and his demons if not by mere people. You'll live in the hope that someday soon, all that will be gone and you'll be vindicated in your beliefs. Of course - one doesn't say that out loud. Out loud, it's "Jehovah's name will be vindicated".
On this site, the arguments against JWs and the WBTS are often centered around things that have been said in the literature and from the podium. Prophecies that didn't come true, etc. Sometimes arguments from a theological standpoint, arguing various scriptures etc. We'll argue that the Watchtower believes they were selected in 1919, but didn't really teach much of what they do today back then. And on and on.
To someone like you, none of that matters I think. You're more 'loose' in your beliefs I think, and many are. You probably rely on the 'core' beliefs, like no trinity, no hell, no soul, the name Jehovah, the worldwide preaching work. Anything outside of that is not so important, and if there are things that are wrong outside of that, it's caused by fallible men not getting God's message right the first time, or the light getting brighter. Or maybe even that Jehovah doesn't really care much if we get all the details right, as long as those core things are. Sometimes I think we here at this site tend to forget that people have that perspective. I think many more or less active JWs share it. You'd say the Bible's authors were clearly fallible, so why not the WBTS? Well, they claim to be God's only channel on earth today. If so, it is a little strange that God himself has a problem getting his message across, and has to go back and forth. Even those who say the Bible authors were fallible men will say that the Bible is either infallible (as the WBTS actually says), or that at least the red thread of the Bible is infallible and the true word of God. If even that is put into question by you because you say "Well, they're fallible, so even their claim to be God's only channel could be wrong", then what is there left to believe in? Whatever you decide could be true? How wishy-washy can you allow yourself to be within that system? [edited to clarify] -That was not a quote of one of reniaa's posts, just an example of mine. [/edited]
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, which was not my intent. I wish you good luck and a good life whatever you end up choosing.
-
-
-
Awakened07
*** g90 2/8 p. 11 What Happened to the Dinosaurs? *
**When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by Jehovah for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.
Yes, why not outright lie and misrepresent as long as we have already told our followers not to make any personal inquiries into the subject. They'll never know...
-
57
A New Theory of the Universe
by BurnTheShips inrobert lanza has literally written the book on stem cell science and delves into the issue of consciousness, reality, and a biocentric view of the universe.. .
while i was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently.
why does the universe exist?
-
-
Awakened07
I have a lot to say about this, but I feel it's a little "unfair" that I would have to think up and write down a reply as lengthy as the above article itself in order to do so, so I'll try to make it brief.
So - Robert Lanza proposes a new, unifying scientific theory of the universe. A scientific theory should start with observations of occurrences in the universe, and be a set of individually tested hypothesis that come together, and make predictions that pan out. I'm a little puzzled by this essay, because I'm a little uncertain of if he really means what he says quite literally or not.
Like when he says:
The trees and snow evaporate when we’re sleeping. The kitchen disappears when we’re in the bathroom. When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roasting—the kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bits dissolve into nothingness—or into waves of probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal.
It seems to me that he actually uses quantum physics as a means to show that this is actually, literally true; that without an (biological) observer, there's no reality. This is not a new thought by any means; I've seen it mentioned many times before (tree falling in the woods?). -Perhaps I'm pummeling a straw man by thinking he means this literally, but it sure seems that way from this article.
I also find Lanza's way of arguing for his 'theory' a little strange. First, he argues:
Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes observations, names what it observes, and creates stories. Science has not succeeded in confronting the element of existence that is at once most familiar and most mysterious—conscious experience. [.....] We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature. The ether of the 19th century, the “spacetime” of Einstein, and the string theory of recent decades, which posits new dimensions showing up in different realms, and not only in strings but in bubbles shimmering down the byways of the universe—all these are examples of this speculation. Indeed, unseen dimensions (up to a hundred in some theories) are now envisioned everywhere, some curled up like soda straws at every point in space. Today’s preoccupation with physical theories of everything takes a wrong turn from the purpose of science—to question all things relentlessly.
In other words; science has been preoccupied with what it can prove in the physical world, and in making calculations that make verifiable predictions about the real world. But we make those predictions, the 'stories', the theories, based on observing something we therefore have created. And that as such, those scientific theories and predictions are virtually worthless at describing the universe. This is an attack on scientific methodology.
Then he suddenly turns right around and uses one specific interpretation of quantum physics and trusts that part of current scientific research entirely, because that "story" happens to support his theory?? What happened to "Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes observations, names what it observes, and creates stories" ? Doesn't this apply in like measure to quantum physics? Is it not likely that we will know more about how it works as we make more advances even in this field?
Robert Lanza's main point seems to be that he has come up with a unifying theory of the universe based in biology. I find it a little strange then, that he uses all other scientific disciplines to describe his theory except biology. Is there anything in this essay that is explained from biology? Only if you make a circular argument: "If I am right, biological entities - as observers - create reality because [my interpretation of] quantum physics seem to lead to that conclusion, and since reality is here, it must be created by biological entities, and I am right."
Now - I should say I understand that his 'theory' is an attempt, at least as he sees it, to unify several scientific disciplines. As such, it's not so strange that he would include physics. But he is a biologist. Where is the biological argument? As mentioned, it seems to me that he has arrived at a conclusion based on some version of an argument from incredulity (from findings in physics), and therefore has decided that since we are the observers, and we are biological, it follows that we create physical reality, and that it's therefore a theory rooted in biology. This to me is a circular argument.
I am curious of how this would work in the real world too. If the above quote is true and literal, it makes a few predictions. It means 'reality' was far 'smaller' before than it is today. A few billion little "bubbles of existence" coinciding will describe - and therefore "put into existence" - a whole lot more 'things' than say a million such "bubbles" (living, biological entities) a few million years ago would. Also, the 'bubbles' back then would be much more spatially separated. Did the matter in the universe even exist back then, apart from the few stars they could directly observe?
It also leads us down the path to conclude that before any biological living things emerged, nothing physical existed either, but since matter started to exist at some point, some kind of observer would have to be present in order to start it all. This of course would be popular with theists of any kind, but it becomes supernatural and philosophical rather than a scientific theory real fast. Come to think of it, this all becomes so surreal that I can't believe he means this in the most literal sense. However, there is that quote above... Hmm...
So - he roots this 'theory' in biology, because to him, biological creatures more or less create reality by observing it. OK. But what then when we send probes to other planets, places never seen by the human eye, or any other biological eye? When we get pictures back from that planet's surface, how can it show us anything at all? It shouldn't exist (at least not the parts of it that have not been directly observed before from telescopes). The probe/satellite is not an 'entity' at all; it's just a piece of highly ordered matter picking up photons etc. emitted from the object and turned into digital data that we can play back once we receive it back on earth. If a nuclear blast of a hydrogen bomb evaporates a biological entity like a human being and makes an imprint of that persons features on the wall he/she stood in front of, and no one else were around at the time, is the resulting image on the wall then an "observance"? If so, it was made by an inanimate 'object', not a biological entity, just like the images in the satellite would be produced from inanimate processes. So objectively, the satellite would send back images of an object not observed by any biological entity, and therefore - according to this theory - the object shouldn't exist so as to be recorded. Does it work because even though the data was collected mechanically, we would be the ones interpreting it? If so, wouldn't any kind of data about the physical world be different for every single observer / interpreter? Could we collaborate on anything when it comes to describing the universe?
Now - of course - - although I don't want to put words in his mouth or a position he does not agree with - - one could say that these things can be measured etc. because there are other, invisible living entities observing them and making them exist. First of all, we are in that case back to a supernatural view that science cannot comment on other than to say it's impossible to verify the existence of such creatures, and second of all, it would fly in the face of Lanza's theory, as he is a biologist and his theory is supposed to be rooted in biology.
I also find these quotes a little strange, coming from someone as intelligent and educated as this:
Modern science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for animal life to exist. For example, if the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together. Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just three of more than 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a defense of intelligent design.
As we have seen, the world appears to be designed for life not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. In cosmology, scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains—from atoms to stars—was tailor-made for us. Many are calling this revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not too this or too that, but just right for life. Others are calling it the anthropic principle, because the universe appears to be human centered. And still others are calling it intelligent design, because they believe it’s no accident that the heavens are so ideally suited for us. By any name, the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics community and beyond. At the moment, the only attempt at an explanation holds that God made the universe. But there is another explanation based on science. To understand the mystery, we need to reexamine the everyday world we live in. As unimaginable as it may seem to us, the logic of quantum physics is inescapable. Every morning we open our front door to bring in the paper or to go to work. We open the door to rain, snow, or trees swaying in the breeze. We think the world churns along whether we happen to open the door or not. Quantum mechanics tells us it doesn’t.
He manages to use both the 'Goldilocks' and 'anthropic principle' labels and explain what the argument is about (as it is often used by creationists and IDers), but somehow fails to explain the most common 'rebuttal' to the argument. Instead he creates a false dichotomy by saying that there are only two proposed explanations; God or - of course - his own theory. There is a third (and probably more) option. And, in fact, it even somewhat touches on the principle in Lanza's theory, but in a different way: We are here to observe the universe. If all these 'just so' properties hadn't been the way they are, we wouldn't have been here to talk about them. In other words, it's possibly the opposite of what Lanza proposes; If the universe was not conducive to intelligent life in any way because it's properties were slightly different from how they are now, there would be no one here to marvel over it. It could still exist in some way, there just wouldn't be anyone there to see it. As another example, the argument is also that the Earth is placed in just the correct distance etc. from the sun so as to be able to support life. A little closer would be too hot, a little farther away too cold. Although this is not entirely correct, there is a point to be made there. But as above, it can be followed through quite simply: Let's move the earth out to where Mars is, or the other way to where Venus is. It would be either too cold or too hot to sustain (human) life. How many people live on Mars and Venus and marvel at how exact those planets' positions are? None. Why? Because human life cannot exist there as-is. If we somehow could, and thrived in the high or low temperature, pressure etc., we would have marveled over that.
This version of quantum mechanics has become increasingly popular in the last few years, in New Age, creationist and ID circles. "There's an uncertainty in science? Wow. Did it say the outcome depends on the observer? Wow. Let's put our philosophy into that uncertainty."
I said I'd try to make this brief, and I've failed. I'll just say - before this forum software eats up my work as it usually does - that it seems to me that Lanza thought to himself, like many many people before him: "Man, this is incredible. This is soo complex and beautiful. I wonder what that worm thinks, if anything? What is consciousness? Why am I here? Is this all there is?". Not so strange that he would ask those questions and think like that. Most people do at some point. but then it seems he made up his mind; "This can't be all there is, we are more than the sum of our parts (of which I partially agree), there has to be something more - - and look, quantum physics says there's a possibility that it's so. I'll use that in my theory."
I can't really see that he has even used the scientific method to come to his theory/conclusion. And why should he, since he thinks it's all just 'stories' based on observing things that are uncertain in the first place? Is he using science in an (possibly inadvertent) effort to 'debunk' science? Does that work or make sense?
What predictions does his theory make about the world, that are not already made by quantum physics and other disciplines of science? Wouldn't one such prediction have to be that without biological entities to observe matter, matter wouldn't exist at all, and in fact doesn't exist at all, only the probability or possibility of matter? Then how is it we can use non-biological systems to record data about areas of the universe never seen by any biological organism (at least not directly observed by one as we conduct the experiments and mechanically collect the data)?
Is the universe a mysterious place? Yes. Does science have all the answers? No. Would it help science to "step outside the box" and take metaphysics into account? I don't think so; it would become philosophy, not science. In what way would this 'unifying theory' of Lanza propel science forward? What would science gain, as the discipline trying to explain physical phenomena in the universe? The 'knowledge' that nothing is certain? That any collecting of data is worthless, because it is conducted by biological entities that are influencing the result on both a microscopic and macroscopic level? To me, this seems more like the death of the natural sciences than anything, if taken seriously. Which of course would be lauded by many, but what would we end up with? No possible true knowledge at all? Maybe I'm committing the crime of making a false dichotomy myself here, but I need help in order to see it another way.
Or is his theory more "benign" and I'm misunderstanding the whole thing? Perhaps he's saying that of course all of physical reality is always there, observed or not, but that it's only when it's observed that we can collect any kind of data about it? Well, if so, that would be so self evident as to be idiotic. "You can only tell the color of the car by looking at it." Well, duh.
It seems to me from this article however, that he's saying that without me (or someone else nearby) observing the car, it would literally not be there. Welcome to the insane asylum.
-
57
Will Women Eventually Start Being Used As Servants?
by White Dove inas the men in the congregations suffer from burnout and quit helping out as ms and elders, do you think the situation of shrinkage will become so desperate that the wts will be forced to start using women in positions of authority?
they have a huge commodity that they are refusing to use.
that makes no sense at all.
-
-
Awakened07
Hey, don't get any big ideas, you rib-derived, fruit-eatin', saved-'cause-of-childbirth, afterthought of creation! Know your place!
j/k
-
31
Are we hyper-sensitised to JW changes? Do we exaggerate their importance?
by yadda yadda 2 insometimes i think we lose all perspective at times on here.
that we are just as prone to over-magnifying any meaning behind relatively minor changes like this in the organisation in the same way jw's are prone to over exaggerate every bit of bad news in the world to mean armageddon is near.. when you sit down in the cold light of day, this change to the bookstudy arrangement for example, is it really that much a big deal?
i strongly doubt it really, despite initial reactions (including my own).
-
-
Awakened07
I think there sometimes is a tendency here to hype certain things up and make a big evil conspiracy out of anything, but, as they say "It's not paranoia if there's really someone following you."
Lately it seems to me that we 'apostates' dig deeper and understand the literature better than the witnesses themselves. It wouldn't surprise me for instance that if I were to ask my parents what the significance of 1914 is and the Generation, they would tell me some version of the previous teachings, perhaps a mish-mash of them. I somehow doubt they've even noticed that there's new light. It should be important to them, but it seems to be more important to us. We of course look for these things for signs of weakness and contradiction etc.; proof they're not in any way 'God's channel'. We already know, but a little more doesn't hurt.
The bookstudy change did perhaps get way out of hand here when it came to the amount of threads (of which I read virtually none), but even so - it IS a big change. I mean - how many times were Hebr. 10:25 drilled into our brains? In every meeting? "not neglecting to meet together [...] and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." (ESV)
It is also important because, as has been said ad nauseum; the book study was probably the last venue where people felt they could ask questions that were a little to the side, perhaps air some doubts even, or share something found in own research. In the venue of the large Kingdom halls, it will be reduced to the same droning on as the Watchtower study is, where you pretty much either answer the question by a direct reading of a portion of the paragraph, or just rearrange the words and put in a few of your own as to not make it seem like you're just reading the paragraph out loud. In addition to - which has also been mentioned a lot by now - it was the tight little group we were supposed to go to when the sh*t hit the fan.
So, I believe these changes are really important. But I can agree that sometimes there's a tendency here to perhaps blow things out of proportions, or speculate on things we can't know. But - on the other hand, we should be free to air our 'hypothesis' in a place like this. If not here, where else?
-
35
Christians - What do you believe about Armageddon?
by JayBird ini've always wondered what mainstream christianity's viewpoint is in regards to armageddon.
i understand there's no timetable.
but that sense of urgency that exists with jws doesn't seem to be there either.
-
-
Awakened07
-I hope you can all streamline your beliefs and come to an agreement in time before it actually happens, 'cause right now I think some of your views are mutually exclusive, and it would be a public service on your collective part to come to a mutual agreement so that we can all unite on the 'winning side'. Thanks.