21:56 in the video:
“Quotes need to be verified. We want to go to the first-hand source, the original source for that quote. That’s one thing. And secondly, context matters if you want to quote things properly.”
Half a Person
JoinedPosts by Half a Person
-
21
JW.ORG turning into an evangelical clone
by Pistoff ini clicked this link to the november 2017 tvjw video, in it they defend their 2 witness policy, though, gutlessly, they do not mention it in the context of child sexual abuse.. anyway, check out the christian jehovian song at 57:06, ugh, makes me nauseous.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksz0qiftsok&feature=youtu.be&t=53m25s.
-
-
-
44
Being A Jehovah's Witness is Simply A Waste Of Time!!!
by minimus ini hope that if any witness sees this thread, they understand that being a witness = being a time waster.. please understand this.
if you don't believe me, i'm sure others here will agree.. if you can salvage any of your time that is left, do it!
get out of this false religion.
-
-
Half a Person
There are plenty of other ways to waste time...
but yes, learning about what the trumpet blasts of Revelation "really" mean, or what is the significance of the "hairy he goat" does now seem pretty pointless
-
52
Post Songs/ Music That Soothes You Through the Winter -U-Tubes Welcome !
by flipper in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tubgadghgpa&feature=related.
-
-
-
-
-
Half a Person
Some of the most amazing photographs I've seen online are on the Boston Big Picture website
Here's their 2009 year in review:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/2009_in_photos_part_1_of_3.html
-
3
"Fleshly" brother
by Half a Person inafter leaving the congregation, i've begun to notice some weird aspects of "jw-ism" that i wouldn't have batted an eyelid about a few years back.. for example, tonight i heard the phrase "fleshly brother" - meaning someone's literal brother, as opposed to some random bloke who simply happens to belong to the same religion.. and i thought about this, and i thought: "this is wrong.".
i think two of the biggest problems with the jw religion are that (1) it interferes with a person's ability to think clearly, even distorting the relationship between cause and effect, and (2) it attempts to redefine the meaning of words themselves, appropriating them for its own ends.
a "vocabulary hijack", if you will.. a word as fundamental as "brother", meaning someone in your family.
-
-
Half a Person
After leaving the congregation, I've begun to notice some weird aspects of "JW-ism" that I wouldn't have batted an eyelid about a few years back.
For example, tonight I heard the phrase "fleshly brother" - meaning someone's literal brother, as opposed to some random bloke who simply happens to belong to the same religion.
And I thought about this, and I thought: "This is wrong."
I think two of the biggest problems with the JW religion are that (1) It interferes with a person's ability to think clearly, even distorting the relationship between cause and effect, and (2) it attempts to redefine the meaning of words themselves, appropriating them for its own ends. A "vocabulary hijack", if you will.
A word as fundamental as "brother", meaning someone in your family. Someone sharing a large part of your DNA. And yet this word is redefined, so that a whole load of people who were previously strangers now become "brothers". And anyone who previously used to be a brother, now gets relegated to "fleshly brother" (or "biological relative", which sounds like a kind of laundry detergent).
It's not an original observation, but I thought it was interesting how powerful words are in their subtle influence over a person's viewpoint.
-
16
Is the WT misinterpreting Newton? What does "mortal" mean?
by Open mind inyesterday's (18 october, 2009) wt lesson had a picture of milton & newton with a caption that said both men "knew" about the hope of living forever on earth.
(interesting it didn't say they "believed" it.
that's just a side point to this thread.).
-
-
Half a Person
Isn’t this an “appeal to authority” fallacy?
The Society’s thought process probably went something like this:
- Isaac Newton wrote some words which seem to agree with our beliefs
- Therefore Isaac Newton supports our beliefs
- Isaac Newton was a clever man
- Therefore our beliefs (which he agrees with) must also be clever
- So anyone who disagrees with us is, in effect, saying that they are cleverer than Isaac Newton!
- This is unlikely. Consequently, anyone who disagrees with us is probably (a) arrogant, (b) delusional, and (c) just plain wrong.
But as this thread has shown, the point Newton was making (that after Armageddon, the earth will always be inhabited by humans) is different to the point the Society is making (that after Armageddon, the earth will always be inhabited by *the same* humans), so the above list falls apart.
-
44
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. From the Nov 1 WT
by life is to short inthe november 1st public wt has an article on "do you need to learn hebrew and greek?
" funny is it not that they feel we do not need too.
anywho on page 21 of said wt.
-
-
Half a Person
What a horrible article.
While the _intention_ of the article wasn't to keep people stupid*, that certainly will be part of the effect. "Keep them stupid* so that they don't realise that half of what we say is absolute rubbish."
If the society was a food production company, they would churn out tonnes and tonnes of fast food every year, and their marketing campaign would discourage customers from reading any sort of nutritional advice. Their tagline would read: "No need to think - just eat! Because *we* know what's best for you!!"
_________________
* Maybe "ignorant" is a better word than "stupid" -
26
Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?
by Half a Person ini have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.
its usually something along the lines of:.
our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?
-
-
Half a Person
Thanks Narkissos
qualitative or structural incompatibility
…
the one who makes (and hence transcends) the "rules"I can see that if God is in a class (category) of his own, then he could be called “unexplainable”. Almost like how the designer of a computer game isn’t subject to the rules of the game. Kind of like if Pac-Man asked how many pac-dots his designer ate per minute, or how many “levels” there are in his creator’s environment. It’s impossible to adequately explain “actual real life” if all you have for reference is the limited concepts of the “game world”.
@Deputy Dog
God can give reasons "if He wants". But, doesn't "need" to.
It’s such a contrast to Watchtower reasoning. Although they didn’t claim to have an answer for *every* question, they were proud to be able to answer most questions, including the issue of theodicy.
@donuthole
The so-called "Universal Court Case" is something Rutherford, himself a lawyer dreamed up.
Yeah, all the WT answers boil down to the "issue of university sovereignty"
I'd like to end wickedness but I can't because the Devil pulled a fast one on me.
And the WT answer sort of falls apart here, for me, because if the ransom has already been paid, then what is God waiting for? If Jesus provided the "ultimate answer" to Satan, then isn't the case closed? Surely there's nothing left to prove?
-
26
Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?
by Half a Person ini have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.
its usually something along the lines of:.
our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?
-
-
Half a Person
@Narkissos
To the op: "Satan" came up as a helpful tool to screen "God" away from the actual working of "evil".
Yes I remember reading an old thread on this forum which discussed Satan being a later introduction to the Old Testament.
More generally, the god who has reasons for his actions (or permissions) falls short of "God". If you can successfully explain why "God" did anything -- congratulations, you just killed "God" (again).
I think this sort of fits in with the passage from Job I quoted earlier on. Also this verse from Isaiah: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (55:9). So if God is incredibly more intelligent (if that’s the right word) than us, then *by definition* it will always be impossible for us to fully understand the reasons for his actions. We would simply lack the mental capacity to comprehend what’s going through his “mind”.
@glenster
I think what you’re saying, basically, is that the existence of evil doesn’t stop you from believing in God. And also, that the existence of evil tells us something about God – i.e. that he is not all-beneficent. The fact that bad things happen must mean that God is capable of punishing people as well as blessing them.
@bluecanary
If we are discussing the God of the Bible, the comparison between him and humans is already made for us. He is described as Father and humans are spoken of as his children and are supposedly made in his image. The comparison to animals is not valid in this case.
I wish I’d thought of that. It would have saved me a lot of typing about cows.
So, going back to the original point: “Why don’t Christians talk about Satan when trying to explain suffering”, my conclusions so far are: (a) They DO talk about Satan, sometimes, but (b) In the end it comes down to God, because he is in charge, but (c) This question is ultimately impossible to fully answer, because we are incapable of comprehending God.
-
26
Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?
by Half a Person ini have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.
its usually something along the lines of:.
our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?
-
-
Half a Person
@DeputyDog
It might seem that way to you, but, God is in control and knows exactly who will be hurt, killed in any disaster. He is also responsible for every survivor. I don't believe ANYTHING is arbtrary.
Whoa, sorry I but I can’t believe that. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but there’s no way I could watch the news, see a disaster and say “They had it coming to them.”
We do deserve to die.
We are all *going* to die, unfortunately, which is something I had to accept (with difficulty) when I rejected the JW belief system. But believing that we *deserve* to die sounds exactly like the sort of thing that would destroy a person’s self-esteem. I know I always felt guilty as a JW because I could never meet their (impossibly high?) standards. I felt like I deserved to die, and I think that this belief suppressed me - rather than helping me - as a person.
@glenster
the cows that moo twice are killing the cows that moo once
Yeah I think war is stupid as well.
A lot of them are anti-rancher.
Hm. Are these by any chance Evil Atheist Cows? Because my position isn’t that I *hate* [the] God [of the bible], rather it’s that I don’t think he exists. Let’s say the cows never saw the rancher. Ever. Do you think it would be fair of them to assume that there was no rancher?
A cow might look at all the hardships and say life sucks, and another cow might see all the same things yet be glad for their shot at life and what good they found in it.
But I don’t think the outlook of the “glass half empty” vs “glass half full” cows has anything to do with whether they believe in the (as yet unseen) rancher. They might just be optimistic or pessimistic cows.
There's no credible concept of an all-beneficent rancher (or cows or ranch) or that choice wouldn't exist.
Are you saying that if life wasn’t filled with suffering, then all of the cows would be optimistic? That’s a good thing, isn’t it though? I’d rather have a field of happy, problem-free cows than a bovine bloodbath.
a son from the rancher's dysfunctional family who's…presiding over those who decide life sucks and to forget the rancher.
But for some people, life does suck. What’s wrong with acknowledging that? Why does it have to be likened to pledging allegiance to Satan? (I hope I’m understanding your illustration properly here). Some people (I assume) acknowledge that life sucks, but just get on with it. Again, the sort of language you’re using: “anti-racher”, “forget the rancher”, suggests that anyone who isn’t worshipping [the Christian] God is consciously and deliberately working against him, whereas in reality they probably don’t give “him” a second thought.