Vita Nuova

Joined

• started 7 topics
• posted 61 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Vita Nuova

• 
  46

  What are the flaws of this forum?

  by Vita Nuova in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as much information, insight and entertainment this forum provides, some things about its format and design have come to annoy me.

  let me start by saying that i think one of the biggest weaknesses of this forum may be the active topics option at the top.

  it seems to me that some people may use this option just to see which topics are still alive.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  As much information, insight and entertainment this forum provides, some things about its format and design have come to annoy me. Let me start by saying that I think one of the biggest weaknesses of this forum may be the Active Topics option at the top. It seems to me that some people may use this option just to see which topics are still alive. This option therefore makes it quite easy for some people to intervene in a thoughtful conversation with a rather thoughtless reaction. This observation about the "Active Topics" option may not be altogether true, but it is something that easily explains the prolific amount of responses made by individual members across a wide scope of threads. Of course, it just may be that this forum is so addictive.
  

  But the problem that exists, nonetheless, is that some members are ennabled to make the most inane comments within an otherwise thoughtful thread. It's not that I am annoyed by the humor that I rather enjoy within any discussion, I am speaking particularly of the pseudo-thinkers on this board that make their sometimes esoteric, hyper-reductive, dishonest, or lazy attempts at intellect with stock arguments and affected poses to steady themselves on. I would like to make a distinction between these members and those sincerely curious and meek minds who have a genuine respect for knowledge and thought. But these are not the same people who will hijack a good thread with a dull dispute that mostly involves semantics and an unlearned, undisciplined style of cut-and-paste argument. The only solution to this, as I see it, is that we simply muster the self-control to refrain from responding to some members' abuse of a democratic forum.

  Perhaps, though, I am just venting about the disdain for careful thought that seems so prevalent in some people's argumentation.
• 
  20

  But Jehovah is such a loving God!!!..........

  by ohiocowboy in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  .

  and this link proves it.......... http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  That is an example of the wrong reasoning drilled into us by the GB/WTS.

  Flash, this is a much-needed insight that points out much of the flagrant irony displayed here at the forum.

  Many EX-JWs here and elsewhere have a bad taste left in their mouth after awakening from their comatose state in the Borg. Many will then react with revulsion against the hypocrisy and ignorance that the WBTS fed them, and they often do so with their scriptural training availing them in many counterarguments raised against the Borg and even against the Bible itself (many don't make the necessary distinction between the two). That is to say, in reacting against the fundamentalism and selective literalism of the WBTS, which is the foundation of all that EX-JWs loathe, many EX-JWs will use that very same methodology to refute the borg and the Bible.

  When butting heads with a fundamentalist, this method is justifiable insofar as it demonstrates that one literalist's interpretation is just as valid as the other's. But when seeking to discredit the Bible as a providential collection of inspired texts, to lean upon this method only demonstrates that one has not yet recovered completely from the mental atrophy of the WBTS coma. With many examples in the Bible to show this, scripture was never meant to be interpreted without an accompanying tradition of teaching. Jesus, while citing scriptures throughout his ministry was not satisfied with a mere reading of it, but offered deeper insights than could be gleaned from the text. If appealing to Jesus seems unfair, then take the example of Paul, for whose teachings there are no precedent as established by Christ--and it would be ignorant to think that Paul's epistles contain EVERYTHING that he taught during his ministry. And finally, the Bible shows us Christ as establishing the Church and the apostles founding supporting Churches as institutions of a living tradition of teaching. The point, which fundamentalists are reluctant to grasp, is that a book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. So, if I may offer some advice to the many who still walk with a fundamentalist's limp, you need the aid of more than the strict letter of the Biblical text if you want to have a thoughtful discussion.

  Vita Nuova
• 
  79

  So What The Hell Are You?

  by shamus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  according to dubdom, what are you?

  i am a lame weakass lamb who goes on apostate websites who faded.

  in the real world i am free from mind control.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  As it is, I am seated precariously with Babylon the Great upon the scarlet-colored wild beast with seven heads and ten horns with ten diadems upon its horns.

  WTBS interprets this as meaning that I am a worldly cohort of false religion and will fall before the dread judgment of Jehovah the Great.

  As interpreted by everyone else... I'm on crack.
• 
  30

  Men are just happier.

  by Surreptitious in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  edited to remove humor that by the light of day has potential to offend....

  edited to put back cuz it's almost dark here now....

  why men are just happier people - what do you expect from such .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  Here's a few more reasons men are happier:

  Grooming yourself is a matter of minutes not hours. There is no time of the month. Being called a whore is cool. Being cool means being a whore.
• 
  29

  My Girlfriend's a JW, but I am not, What to do???

  by Another Guy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  just wondering if anyone can help, so heres a little insight into the situation.. we've been friens for ages but she always told me we could be nothing more she said "theres stuff you dont know about me & you wouldnt understand" but one night i kinda hinted that i knew and she fessed up not only bout being a jw but also bout how she felt only thing is she says its not gonna work, but she wants it to work she wants me to convert and i want her to leave the orgainization.

  her mothers been a witness for ten years but her father is not.

  also she hasnt paid much attention to it either till a few months ago and shes starting to get into it now.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  What Willy said. There ain't no girl, boy, woman, or man, that's worth gving up your freedom and peace of mind.
• 
  16

  Did Jesus REALLY cast demons into swine?

  by gumby in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the gospels tell us that on one occasion jesus exorcised a man of demons who called themselves "legion" because there was about..."two thousand of them.

  " these demons are cast by jesus into a large herd of pigs, which rush over the edge of a hillside and are drowned.. exactly the motif is found in the rites of the mysteries at eluesis ( about 20-40 miles from greece) as part of the purification ceremony before initiation, some 2 thousand initiates all bathed in the sea with young pigs.

  this bathing ritual banished all evil into the pigs, which were then sacraficed, as a symbol of the initiates own impurities, by being chased over a chasm.. these latter rites and performances were long before jesus time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  People NEED something to believe in and many believe simply on faith with no evidence

  Well, it really wouldn't be Faith if you had apprehensible evidence. Faith is faith exactly because there is no evidence. It is rather belief proceeding from testimony or authority.
• 
  36

  Our Heroes--past and present

  by Vita Nuova in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i really hope to get a ton of responses for this topic, so even if you're just browsing through postings and topics, please add your two cents...however brief.

  i am really curious to know who our "heroes" are, those people we admire, identify with, emulate and recieve inspiration from.

  feel free to even list former heroes and perhaps why you were taken with admiration for them at that point in your life and maybe why you don't feel that way any longer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  I really hope to get a ton of responses for this topic, so even if you're just browsing through postings and topics, please add your two cents...however brief. I am really curious to know who our "heroes" are, those people we admire, identify with, emulate and recieve inspiration from. Feel free to even list former heroes and perhaps why you were taken with admiration for them at that point in your life and maybe why you don't feel that way any longer. Even if you're one of those cynics who wouldn't deign to have a hero these days, then list a hero of someone else you know. My heroes now? The medieval Italian poet Dante and my friend Shannon. I met both in the same year, and through each of them my life was decisively changed. Dante, for his poetic gifts, theological vision and moral fiat. Shannon, for her genuine humanity, patient friendship, and for being in the right place at the right time for me--consistently.
• 
  51

  What Bugs You The Most About Jehovah's Witnesses?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is it the theology?

  is it the smugness that many witnesses have?

  is it the multitude of false prophecies and errors?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  What bugs me most about JW's?

  From a religious standpoint: That they deny all but an elite class of members from recieving the body and blood of Christ.

  From a secular standpoint: That they deny all but an elite class of members the right to think.
• 
  6

  Men vs. Women... again.

  by Vita Nuova in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  actually, the title of the thread is misleading, but i'm assuming it will draw the same posters who commented on a similar thread previously posted this month.

  in that thread, which belonged to minimus, i posed the provocative question, the essence of which was whether women could ever achieve in any major field of the arts and sciences the precedents set by the greatest of men.

  by the responses, it seemed a lot of women thought i came off as a chauvinist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  I would prefer to think that men and women, given the same chance, have roughly the same possibility of making major contributions to humanity.

  Gopher, I think you missed the point, but I don't blame you, the initial thread is rather convoluted. I agree that each has the same possibility for attaining greatness, but it seems obvious that men and women have an inclination unique to each that distinguishes their contributions, whether it remains unspoken or not. And as I mentioned somewhere in that verbose post, exceptions abound. As for how to apply the conclusion that men and women are uniquely different, it doesn't seem to be of utmost importance, I admit.

  I'd rather think in terms of humanity as a whole, and divide them into people who are driven to succeed, and people who are not.

  Indeed, their complementary uniquenesss make them co-operators in the universal enterprise of humanity, so long as they seek to cooperate.
• 
  6

  Men vs. Women... again.

  by Vita Nuova in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  actually, the title of the thread is misleading, but i'm assuming it will draw the same posters who commented on a similar thread previously posted this month.

  in that thread, which belonged to minimus, i posed the provocative question, the essence of which was whether women could ever achieve in any major field of the arts and sciences the precedents set by the greatest of men.

  by the responses, it seemed a lot of women thought i came off as a chauvinist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vita Nuova

  Actually, the title of the thread is misleading, but I'm assuming it will draw the same posters who commented on a similar thread previously posted this month. In that thread, which belonged to Minimus, I posed the provocative question, the essence of which was whether women could ever achieve in any major field of the arts and sciences the precedents set by the greatest of men. By the responses, it seemed a lot of women thought I came off as a chauvinist. The truth is I was simply unconvinced either way. I am quite aware of the historical oppression and undervaluation of women but I have not really discovered any female figure in modern times that has equalled, say, those which I proffered as among the most exemplary men of history: Einstein, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo. Of course, neither has any modern male figure equalled them. So I suppose to fairly compare the sexes on this matter the contest would have to be staged on such a playing field as the present day affords. Yet this itself is contentious and any evaluation would be dubious, being without the objective benefit of that historical viewpoint by which we have been able to evaluate the long-standing worth of any timeless genius.
  

  But it occurred to me today that all the possible answers I had envisioned to my question were of a vertical thinking that is essentially unsatisfactory. Either you can say 1) men are greater 2) women are greater or 3) men and women are equal. Empirically speaking, the first has more to support it than the second, yet remains unsettling; and the third remains unconvincing when one considers the intrinsic and dramatic differences between the sexes. The answer is something which I've heard a million trillion times before, though it never stuck. It hit me today and it is so obvious I'm sure every person person wielding common sense without the astigma of an agenda will say to me: Duh! The answer is that men and women are far from equal, rather they are so intrinsically different as to be considered different species. One provides what the other does not and vice-versa. The problems with each are related to the situations, roles, and circumstances. Men exhibit effortlessness in some roles where women must exert themselves. Women are preternaturally disposed to other roles where men are generally oafish. Exceptions arise, of course. And then the private issue is that of preference, i.e. "what do you prefer at times?" What I am NOT saying, in regards to the above example is that men are better suited to intellectual pursuits than women. I am asserting that the achievements of each are to be valued primarily within their gender categories and not against the opposite. When one does attempt to estimate the worth of one gender in comparison to the other in any category, then one will find oneself comparing apples and oranges. So which do you prefer, orange juice or apple juice? There are values distinct to both. Men and women are not equal, then, they are complementary. Equality is a loaded term, connoting all the wrong things.