Posts by OneEyedJoe

19

"You wouldn't want to bring reproach on Jehovah's name, would you?"

by Esse quam videri in

what would be your reply?.

my reply: jehovah is big enough to take care of himself.. yours?.

OneEyedJoe

Most of the time this comes up in order to discourage someone from seeking justice or reporting wrongdoing, I would simply point out that honestly exposing the matter cannot possibly bring reproach upon Jehovah. If anything the actions of the other party that got you to that conversation is what brought the reproach. Exposing the matter is the best way to clean up the reproach already brought upon his name.
That's assuming you want to address a jw elder in such a way that it makes logical sense within the bounds of the cult without exposing you as an apostate. The real answer is of course I want to bring reproach on Jehovah's name, and by extension the cult that uses it so much. The lower the public opinion is of the cult, the better off the world will be.

3

The possible extinction of cults

by Sugar Shane in

here's a link to an interesting article on the apparent demise of cults.

i can remember being accosted by various culty groups back in the '70s, while walking through the airport in lax.

this article ties the dwindling number of cults in western culture, to a shift towards secularism.

OneEyedJoe

There will always be cults. Maybe not religious cults, but they'll find other forms.

75

Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando in

not being familiar with either, my question is:.

what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.

i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..

OneEyedJoe

In general, the relationship is similar to that between belief that Jerusalem fell in 586bc and the lack of belief in the JW doctrine. Evolution is a fact that goes directly against fundamentalist Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) and therefore it helps many to see that if one doctrine if flawed then others may be too.
It also removes the necessity for god in yet another realm, much the way Laplace did when he proved that the solar system didn't need a divine being to keep it stable. The more knowledge we gain about the natural processes that have gotten the universe to where it is today, the less necessary it is to appeal to a deity to explain things. As people learn to find natural explanations to things, they cast off superstitions, including belief in god.

10

LOOK! Something new and shiny!

by stuckinarut2 in

isn't it amazing just how easily distracted the average witness is?.

with the flood of stuff being produced and uploaded on the website, from embarrassing corny videos and songs, to music for kids, to cartoons etc, the average witness has no time to actually stop and think about the actual doctrines or facts about the organisation.

nor the past, nor the scandals being exposed by real news outlets and media.

OneEyedJoe

It's easy to be distracted when you want to be distracted. I can't imagine that every JW doesn't have something that they question or don't understand or feel is wrong with the cult. They crave the distractions because it helps them to push that to the back to think about something else.

30

Control - Whose worse, the JWs or the traditional churches?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we once experienced, the "you'll die at armegeddon," fear instilled into us as jw's.. was that worse or better than the fear of eternal torment instilled by more conventional religions?.

john spong gives his view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkah3hemv3m.

OneEyedJoe

Asserting control over the afterlife (or lack thereof) is one thing. JWs control the now via the shunning policies, their strict control on information flow and strong phobia indoctrination. You'll hear catholics joke about going to hell because of something they habitually do (like premarital sex) that would get a JW shunned by everyone they know. You never hear of a JW joke about something like that.

So regardless of what the doctrine is, it's how its applied and how people are indoctrinated that is the measure of the control that a cult has.

20

Surge in Mormon Suicides

by cofty in

last november the mormon cult has issued new rules about homosexuality labelling those in same-sex relationships as apostates who can be excommunicated.

children of gay couples are now required to leave home and repudiate their parent's relationship before they can be part of the church.. at least 32 gay mormon youths have killed themselves since the announcement of the new policy, and there’s been an alarming increase of suicidal teens and twenty-somethings in the church.....

OneEyedJoe

Could also be children from a prior (hetero) relationship.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

OneEyedJoe

I never received an education about such things but it would seem that the evolutionist and the creationist take the same information and come to different conclusions with it... Surely that is OK ?

I don't think they're taking in the same information. Evolutionists take in scientific information in large doses and come to a conclusion. Creationists take in the bible, come to a conclusion, and then dismiss (i.e refuse to "take") any information that doesn't confirm their already held belief.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

OneEyedJoe

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe something starts as a hypothesis, meaning "I think this is true". Then if under the scientific method it is proved true it becomes a theory and from then on the theory is "Ok this is true, what more can we learn about it"?

Not quite. For example, the theory of general relativity spawned the hypothesis that clocks on a satellite in earth orbit would run faster because they're farther removed from earth's gravity. This was then tested and confirmed, which strengthened the theory of general relativity. A hypothesis doesn't "graduate" to become a theory, it (upon being tested) either supports a theory or indicates that a theory needs revision. Alternatively, a group of related, confirmed, hypotheses can be combined to form a theory. You don't typically get a single hypothesis that then becomes a theory, though. A hypothesis' scope is much more limited than that of a theory.

Similarly a theory never really "graduates" to the point that it can be described as a law. The use of the word "law" in the scientific sense is typically relates to an equation that describes the results of a theory. It actually does not imply that anything is more reliable, though. For example, Newton's laws of motion are flawed (confirmed predictions made by general relativity demonstrate this) but they're still taught in schools as a law. These laws come in the form of things like f=ma to describe how something responds to a force applied. Similarly the laws of gravity describe how much force is applied due to gravity in certain situations (as predicted by the theory of gravitation).

In my view, the theory of evolution and the theory of gravitation are on roughly similar footing. If you dispute one on the grounds of "it's just a theory" then you should be open to someone disputing the existence of gravity on similar grounds.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

OneEyedJoe

A theory is just a theory. Evolution is theory. Faith can be put in the same category. Belief in a superior being takes just as much faith as believing in evolution.

If you believe that evolution being a theory means that it's merely one explanation, then I invite you to jump off a cliff. The theory of gravitation is, afterall, just a theory.

108

Leaked Elder's Video: How to deal with a suicidal sister

by cappytan in

this video will be played at one of the clam meetings in march 2016.. the content is kind of old news because it is a recut version of a previous video produced for the elder's school.

however, it's still significant because it shows that the organization still has dissenting brothers in positions of leadership.. my thanks to the leaker.

feel free to claim credit here.

OneEyedJoe

Is there any precedent for materials making their way from the top secret elders school to general distribution? I wonder if this might be a sign that they're having trouble keeping up with the demands of content creation for the new meeting.