Posts by doubtfull1799

10

How do we Avoid...becoming Intellectually Dishonest?

by TerryWalstrom in

intellectual honesty: "i am willing to be wrong when facts go against cherished beliefs.".

are you willing to be wrong?.

without a willingness to be wrong (who can always be right?

March 2018 Broadcast - When quotes become rumors

by Listener in

this months broadcast is presented by losche and he discusses the need for trust in the fds.

the following is transcribed from the 12.30 mark.. satan also has the scheme to spread rumors about our brothers including the faithful slave.

the method of spreading rumors is not new.

doubtfull1799

Jehovah & Jesus trust the F&DS???? I don't remember them ever saying that.

Imagine if a couple of men came to your door and claimed to be working for the government but they had no offical badges, no letters of authority on a govt letterhead etc, nothing, but you must trust them because they say so and listen to everything they say.

Now imagine, that based on your skeptical hesitation, the same men then go on to claim that you have every reason to trust them because the Govt fully trusts them!!! The same Govt that doesn't even acknowledge their existence boy providing them with any credentials???

58

March 2018 Broadcast - When quotes become rumors

by Listener in

this months broadcast is presented by losche and he discusses the need for trust in the fds.

the following is transcribed from the 12.30 mark.. satan also has the scheme to spread rumors about our brothers including the faithful slave.

the method of spreading rumors is not new.

doubtfull1799

stuckinarut2 speechless! Whaaaaaat????? Mic drop!

Just teasing... hehehehe :-)

2

The Value Of Offence

by freemindfade in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uejzbx1iu0.

fantastic video by thermain trees, they always do a great job, this one was no exception.

worth the time.

doubtfull1799

I second that. I love their videos and the informed psychological research that underpins much of their work. I was initially put off a bit by the title, but wow, brilliantly reasoned and so valuable.

15

Facing my own mortality!

by eyeuse2badub in

i’m 71 years old now.

seven decades plus.

but, i put that in perspective owing to the fact that my older brother died in 1992 at the age of only 51. it was a very sobering time for me even though i was only 45 at the time.

doubtfull1799

Good post. Something I struggle with.

I think Pete Zahut makes a good point I hadn't thought about before:

It's a difficult thing to come to grips with ones own mortality all at once rather than doing it gradually over ones lifetime

The constant suppression of our mortality over the years due to our false hope of not having to face it is no doubt not healthy psychologically and makes it that much harder when reality bites!

4

Let's play the "what if" game - a little thought experiment.

by doubtfull1799 in

“if adam and eve hadn’t sinned they would have lived forever and we would all now be still living in paradise” is how watchtower theology goes, right.

(well not us personally, as history would have turned out completely differently and there would be different people on the planet, not us.

when you think about it you owe your very existence to the fact that they didn’t obey.

doubtfull1799

“If Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned they would have lived forever and we would all now be still living in paradise” is how Watchtower theology goes, right.

(Well not us personally, as history would have turned out completely differently and there would be different people on the planet, not us. When you think about it you owe your very existence to the fact that they didn’t obey. If they were faithful you wouldn’t be here to even ponder the point. I, for one, am so happy to be alive, so thank you Adam and Eve!)

OK, so lets take the thought experiment further, what if….

Only Eve sinned and Adam stayed faithful - would God have killed her immediately and given Adam a new wife? Would she also need to pass the same test? Or would Eve be allowed to live and reproduce as she was in the Bible account? Does this mean they would have perfect or imperfect children? Who's genes would override whom? Or would Adam be given another wife to have perfect children with? And Eve another husband? Would there be two races of humans - one perfect and the other with inherited sin, living side by side until the issue was settled?

Adam and Eve both remained faithful - wouldn’t the issue of sovereignty still exist because Satan already raised the challenge? The issue still existed regardless of whether Adam and Eve id the right or the wrong thing. Does that mean at some point some humans would have to try and live without God’s guidance to showcase/test Satan's side of the issue? How could the issue be settled or Satan proved wrong otherwise? Even if Adam and Eve obeyed wouldn’t history have been the same - at some point some humans would have misused their free will and wouldn’t that in fact be necessary to demonstrate the opposite of God rule?

Oh what a tangled theological web we weave in Watchtower's "what if" game…..

23

And now for something you might be able to hear without repulsion

by TerryWalstrom in

i won't give a long preamble other than to say this.

listen and see how you respond.

and now i'm passing it along to get your feedback.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28i3lwxw5xs.

doubtfull1799

Listen to this rant and you'll see what he's all about:

https://youtu.be/EyYdGiJpyXk

"the superordinate principle" - his euphemism for God

"the state isn't salvation, the individual is salvation" - "how difficult that concept is to develop" - "nothing less self-evident than that" - I don't agree (at least I think I don't, its very hard to understand what he's really getting at most of the time.)

His mission is "resurrecting the dormant logos" ???? Yeah, thats clear.

I think he's in love with his own Jungian philosophy and his intellectual personal definitions for things (like God above), and perhaps the sound of his own voice.

He accuses atheists who don't agree with him of being shallow, not being "deep thinkers" - maybe they have thought as deeply as he has, but come to conclusions that are clearer than his.

23

And now for something you might be able to hear without repulsion

by TerryWalstrom in

i won't give a long preamble other than to say this.

listen and see how you respond.

and now i'm passing it along to get your feedback.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28i3lwxw5xs.

doubtfull1799

"Hypertrue" "metatrue" Christ is a "meta hero" Please. "Soul construction" I don't feel my "spirit" was any more "articulated" after to listing to him.This is just more bad philosophy that is trying to say in a very intellectual and complicated way that there must be some higher truth that is not based in the facts of reality. Its just a disguised version of the "you can't have morality without God" argument. There are many ways to determine a moral framework or work out what a person "should" do that don't rely on any esoteric mumbo jumbo - does it cause physical or emotional harm and the veil of ignorance thought experiment are two that come to mind. I checked out another short video of his which was linked titled "the problem with atheism" where he uses the old "if there is no God you can do anything you want" argument. I don't think that puts him in the category of great thinkers. Its just annoying and insulting.

13

The anonymity of Jehovah's Witness material

by stuckinarut2 in

is it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?.

does this allow for honesty and accountability?

does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the religion's ideas?.

doubtfull1799

So what Im saying is that by the time the article I wrote actually gets published it has been butchered so much (not just edited) that it may be barely recognisable as my article anymore. Paragraphs here and there may be the same and that is all.

13

The anonymity of Jehovah's Witness material

by stuckinarut2 in

is it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?.

does this allow for honesty and accountability?

does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the religion's ideas?.

doubtfull1799

I don't know that it would help with credibility, except to say that knowing the writers and and their lack of qualifications would only destroy any credibility. What is more important is the quality of the sources they are using and wether they are using them correctly. It would certainly add credibility of they cited all their sources etc so they could be checked. But we all know where that leads... we find out how much quote mining they do. If their sources were credible and their understanding and application of those sources was good then that would add credibility.

However it would certainly make a difference to accountability to know who the authors are. As it stands, the anonymity means no one can be pinned down or held accountable for what they write individually. So really the GB is intimately responsible for everything that gets published because they are the final editors. They are accountable, bit of course, as we well know, they refuse to accept that accountability.

My experience in the writing department brings up another issue though. It is very difficult to actually attribute many articles to a single author. Because of the way things are done it is almost like "writing by committee." An article that I would send in would be amended by the branch office and then amended again and perhaps combined with, or have other things added to, that other authors were writing about on the same subject. For any given article they may have a number of brother working on material from different writing departments around the world, and then they combine and mix the material together....