OneEyedJoe

Joined

• started 34 topics
• posted 2,930 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OneEyedJoe

• 
  18

  Circuit Assembly outline

  by jdubsnub in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i've been out of the religion for a little while now but my family is still "strong in the truth".

  i got a call today asking if i could stop by to have a discussion.

  they just had their circuit assembly and this is typically when they decide to talk to me, while they're spiritually energized hah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I'll be honest - I went but didn't pay very good attention.  There was a part that probably particularly affected your family, though.  They talked about inactive people, and gave a bunch of reasons why someone might be inactive (realizing it's a cult and a scam wasn't among them, surprisingly) and encouraged people to "help" their inactive relatives.

  
  
• 
  11

  Will the GB use the on going conflict with Muslim extremists as a sign of the end being near?

  by adjusted knowledge in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i haven't read over much of the recent articles in the last decade from the wt.

  i wonder if they will mention muslim extremists and use that fear as a control mechanism on their members.

  i have a feeling they will resist mentioning islam specifically.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  They don't directly attack islam, but they have no qualms about using terrorism in their fear mongering to "prove" that we're in the last days.
• 
  28

  If you're bothered by god murdering innocent children, you must have a "critical heart"

  by OneEyedJoe in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this week's book study contains this gem:.

  the way in which the bible is written serves to test what is in our heart.

  hebrews 4:12 says: the word [or, message] of god is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Cold steel - your post could be summed up as special pleading followed by appeal to consequences.  None of which means I'm wrong - all I stated is that if your bothered by the brutal murder of children, you must have a "critical heart" 

  Basically - if you don't immediately accept that the Bible is infallible and God is perfect, you're not worthy of salvation.  Put yourself in the shoes of a Buddhist that you're taking to about the virtues of  Christianity - can you really expect them not to view the Bible critically when to them it's just "some book"?  Could you really sell them a god that kills children and expect no push back?  That's something I never could, and will never understand.
• 
  28

  If you're bothered by god murdering innocent children, you must have a "critical heart"

  by OneEyedJoe in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this week's book study contains this gem:.

  the way in which the bible is written serves to test what is in our heart.

  hebrews 4:12 says: the word [or, message] of god is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  This week's book study contains this gem:

  The way in which the Bible is written serves to test what is in our heart. Hebrews 4:12 says: “The word [or, message] of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit . . . and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” The Bible’s message pierces deep, revealing our true thinking and motives. Those who read it with a critical heart are often stumbled by accounts that do not contain enough information to satisfy them. Such ones may even question whether Jehovah really is loving, wise, and just.

  So if you're bothered by genocide, or the murder of innocent infants, it's simply because you have a critical heart and aren't deserving of salvation.

  A good comment for those unfortunate enough to attend:

  Many atheists criticise the Bible and seek to cast Jehovah in a bad light, perhaps objecting to Jehovah's many commands to the Israelites to kill every man woman and child in certain surrounding nations.  How wonderful it is that Jehovah had the Bible written in such a way that we can discern that anyone raising such criticism simply does not have the proper heart condition.

  I'll be making every effort not to go, but if I do and can get called on, I'll give some variation of that comment on Thursday. Even while I was still in, I always had a problem with these sweeping ad hominem attacks and generalisations.  It's pretty telling that they don't even allow consideration of criticism, and demonize any potential criticism in advance of even hearing it.
• 
  26

  Scientists almost created life in a lab?!

  by abiather in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the scientists at the scripps research institute, california, have almost succeeded in creating the world's first living organism with artificial dna!.

  http://discovermagazine.com/2015/jan-feb/43-first-organism-with-artificial-dna.

  http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2014/20140507romesberg.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I have explained it. I used terms such as racemic mixture, l-sterio isomer, enantiomer, soai reaction.

  If you don't understand what these things are it's easy to look them up and do the research. I will repeat myself for your sake though. In nature most enantiomers are left handed, to form this homochiral mixture is necessary for life.

  In a lab the mixture is racemic, there are equal left and right handed molecules. Life cannot form with these molecules.

  This has nothing to do with avalanches.

  In order for the correct mixture to form a catalyst is required, a catalyst guides the process, in nature there is an autocatalyst. This process is guided.

  That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not humans have created life in a lab or not.  Your initial comment (I think I quoted the wrong one, perhaps that's what threw you off when I asked the question) seemed to indicate that this particular achievement - life being created in a lab - was somehow indicative that life had to have been created by some intelligence.  The logic behind that conclusion is what I was questioning.  To me, this breaks down into:

  People did x (i.e. people created life in a lab)

  Therefore x never happens without intelligent intervention (i.e. life could not have happened if it weren't triggered by some intelligent creator).

  The conclusion does not follow from the initial premise.
• 
  26

  Scientists almost created life in a lab?!

  by abiather in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the scientists at the scripps research institute, california, have almost succeeded in creating the world's first living organism with artificial dna!.

  http://discovermagazine.com/2015/jan-feb/43-first-organism-with-artificial-dna.

  http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2014/20140507romesberg.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  This is enough evidence for me that the process is guided.
  

  Please explain to me where I'm wrong with my earlier analogy.  If this is evidence that life requires a guiding hand, how is a man-made avalanche not evidence that all avalanches require a guiding hand?  What about man-made ponds? Is that evidence that all ponds require intelligent design?

  I can sorta wrap my brain around why you think it might require some intelligence to kick things off, but I can't fathom why you would consider this as evidence (aside from confirmation bias).
• 
  9

  HOW TO TURN A HOME BIBLE STUDY into an underground railway

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  are you crazy?.

  you find yourself 'awake' to the truth about the 'truth' and all you do about it.

  is sulk?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Aren't most jw's suspicious of old literature? don't their apostate bells go off?
  

  Yep.  Even showing my wife something straight out of WT library, she wanted to go to JW.org for the "latest information."
• 
  26

  Scientists almost created life in a lab?!

  by abiather in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the scientists at the scripps research institute, california, have almost succeeded in creating the world's first living organism with artificial dna!.

  http://discovermagazine.com/2015/jan-feb/43-first-organism-with-artificial-dna.

  http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2014/20140507romesberg.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  thus would prove beyond any doubt that AN ORGANIZER was needed for the emergence of life in the first place,
  

  False.  This does not prove that life requires a sentient designer any more than the fact that humans can trigger an avalanche with explosives proves that avalanches require a sentient being to initiate them.  This is simply humans doing in a few years what it took evolution billions of years to do.  
• 
  13

  Is the Watchtower Shifting All Financial and Legal Risk to Local Elders, are they 100% liable for Negligence?

  by Trailer Park Pioneer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  what is the watchtower organization leaving behind for all the kingdom halls after their done siphoning them dry?

  who is going to pay for a lawsuit or damages when some incompetent elders or three are busted for something very bad?

  will the watchtower help or leave them alone for the sharks to shred to pieces?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  It certainly appears to be their goal to have the underlings take the fall for anything that happens going forward, but I suspect that given the truth of the matter and the abundance of leaked documents, any good lawyer could still connect the dots back to HQ.  

  The problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to exert absolute control all the way down to the local level, but not be liable for anything that comes from this control.  Until theirs some true autonomy to the circuits and congregations, they'll probably remain liable at least to some degree.  Of course, they'll never surrender enough control to grant the congregations sufficient autonomy for that to happen.  

  Though, I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, so maybe someone who actually knows something will chime in.  I'm just talking from the perspective of a potential jury member - it seems like it wouldn't be too difficult for a lawyer to show that the WTS still has it's hands in everything.
• 
  29

  Feb Kingdom Ministry 2015: Irate Householders - why so angry?

  by Trailer Park Pioneer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  feb kingdom ministry 2015, irate householders, "we don't apologize for our work", "did they hear rumors about jws"?

  why so angry?

  blood or disfellowshipping?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Both of these examples - blood and disfellowshipping - are 'hot button' issues for many of us who have left the JWs. So, in effect, the WTS is using these examples to identify potential 'dangerous' apostates to the publishers. And, directing the publishers to avoid these dangerous people. Most people who have had no or little contact with the JWs are almost completely unaware of the ramifications of these two doctrines.

  The most likely arguments I encountered in field service, so many years ago, were about Xmas, Hallowe'en and birthdays.

  This is a good point.  I think you're on to something, this is just a warning to avoid apostates and inoculate the R/F by asserting in advance that anything critical of the org is untrue.  If they were looking for an untrue accusation to use (a category that the objection to the policy on xmas, birthdays, etc clearly doesn't fall under) why wouldn't they use the "You don't believe in jesus" line.  I've heard householders say that time and again, and from talking to other JWs, it seems quite common, at least in predominantly christian areas.  Why not use that as an example?

  Instead they use two subjects that few JWs can defend, and they certainly can't defend it if the householder presses the matter after they read their scripture.  They also know that no one that raises the blood or dfing issues is ever going to become a study.  It seems like the entire intent was just to say that anything bad is untrue, and to make JWs feel like they're in the right (we don't apologize).  If I had to guess, I'd say probably only about 10% of JWs would actually attempt to defend anything to a critical HH, and those aren't likely to be swayed by anything.  The other 90% are now effectively inoculated with the statement that criticism is untrue, so that once they've run away, they won't think twice about it.  If you're going to attempt to perform such an inoculation, you're certainly better off doing it on the subject they're likely to encounter, assuming the average JW knows about it (why they don't mention the jesus isn't your mediator).  

  something else that's notable is that they did not mention anything about the pedophile suits going on - that's probably much more likely to be mentioned by a non-apostate HH.  If their intent was for people to actually defend the org, they'd prepare them.  Instead, it seems that they just want them to run away, and have "untrue rumors" ringing in their ears.