Posts by OneEyedJoe

63

Tight Pants

by pixel in

today is friday.

so let's see something refreshing on the new june 2016 study wt.

tight pants!.

OneEyedJoe

Someone must be running low on writing material. This can not be that big a deal.

IMO they probably realized that a lot of people were talking badly about AMIII's insane rant about the homosexual conspiracy to get men in tight pants, and they needed to nip it in the bud. The other members of the GB may not agree with his extreme stance, but they probably realize that if they allow people to start questioning one of them it opens the door questioning all of them.

So they commission an article designed to get the suck-ups of the congregation to speak at length of the horrors of tight pants. Now the person who realizes that AMIII is a power-tripping pharisee is forced to face a new framing of the situation. It's not him against an authority figure that's abusing power, it's him against the entire congregation of friends, family and loved ones who hold his social future in their hands. Social pressure is a hell of a thing, and this will shut down most of the dissent.

30

"New light"?

by winstonchurchill in

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-june-2016/man-with-inkhorn/.

so i guess baptism is no longer the "mark for survival".. as a matter of fact, that key aspect of the 'old light' is not even acknowledged in this article.. they are just publishing new understanding without even bothering to explain the full extent of the change, hoping nobody will remember how it was... and they may be right about that..

OneEyedJoe

They're back to talking about a modern-day fulfillment to a prophecy when none is indicated in the scriptures. I thought they specifically said that they were done with that when they condemned type/antitype interpretation. Could it really be that they might say one thing but do another when it's convenient? Shocking.

63

Tight Pants

by pixel in

today is friday.

so let's see something refreshing on the new june 2016 study wt.

tight pants!.

OneEyedJoe

Awesome. When I complained about AMIII's pharisiacal rule making everyone in my (former) congregation said that he was talking about pants that were so tight that someone could see the contour of a man's penis, which is clearly immodest. I wonder if anyone will see this and realize that he was, in fact, merely talking about pants that are slim fitting along the legs, but not to the extreme they had to assume in order to excuse his rules.

Probably not. They'll just make more excuses to keep a favorable view of their cult.

40

Who Picks The Governing Body?

by millie210 in

hey everyone,.

just a simple straight forward question on exactly what the process is.

if a gb member died tomorrow, do the remaining ones choose who gets to be next?.

OneEyedJoe

The current GB appoints any new members. They're the very definition of self-appointed.

375

This thread is for proof that God exists

by juandefiero in

jw
friends

however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?

if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.

(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.

OneEyedJoe

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore: The universe has a first cause.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause - false. It is certainly our common experience that this is true, however the birth of a universe is not a common event. It has been demonstrated that in empty space particles are constantly being born and annihilating each other purely randomly and without cause. It is entirely possible that the birth of our universe mirrors this phenomenon.

2. The universe began to exist. - Unverifiable. It certainly appears to have had a beginning in the big bang, but there are a number of ideas about the big bang (i.e maybe it was a "big bounce") that don't require a time zero. It's entirely possible that the universe had no beginning. If you dispute this fact, then I would dispute that god had no beginning and challenge you to demonstrate god's "first cause."

3. Supposing that points 1 and 2 are correct, how does something necessarily having a "first cause" suggest an intelligence of any form? If anything, it simply suggests that our picture of the universe is incomplete, which I think just about any physicist or cosmologist will readily agree with. Simply pointing to a gap in knowledge is not sufficient evidence for belief in anything. Let alone a god with the power to create an entire universe.

27

For those of us creationists who don't know anything about evolution

by truth doubter in

jw
friends

cofty- perhaps you would like to teach us the "first thing about evolution".. truth doubter .

OneEyedJoe

He's tried...

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4849635537453056/evolution-fact-index-numbers-1-20

27

Jehovah's Witnesses the richest religion in the world..

by wwjdnwt in

i don't post here too much..i am more of a lurker.

but, wanted to share recent conversation with jw family member.. one of my jw relatives recently went to visit another jw relative that is "serving where the need is great",.

when my jw relative returned home and i was talking with him, who is an older jw who has been in for over 50 years, was so excited to tell me about the special talk.

OneEyedJoe

The claim that JWs are the richest religion is so completely absurd I don't even know where to start in reacting to someone making it.

56

Why Do Intelligent People Believe in God?

by cantleave in

jw
friends

one of the most common thing thrown at atheists is - lots of intelligent people believe in god.

this darkmatter 2525's video is an excellent explanation as to why very logical people possess religious belief systems.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y201qzddzbg.

OneEyedJoe

But I disagree, your ridiculous claim is that I was indoctrinated to believe in God, but my parents are both agnostic and atheist. So your claim is not supported by the evidence.

His claim was general, your specific example is anecdotal.

Lol hahaha very good. Einstein believed in God

It's very well documented that Einstein used "god" as a metaphor. He was, at best, agnostic.

33

So , how "worldly" did you get?

by greenhornet in

i even hate to use that word worldly tm.. any way i'm probably the worst.. 1 when the jw s come to my door i say i'm not interested .

2 i have gone to many churches and volunteered.. 3 i shredded all my jw books and magazines out in the woods.. 4 had the mormon elders over and studied with them.. 5 tried pot (its legal here).

6 open carry my fire arm every where (legal here also).

OneEyedJoe

I've burned my cult bibles and some books

When I was still going to meetings I took 15-30 magazines per meeting and threw them away in the bathroom

I've smoked (only a couple times socially, have no intention of getting hooked) and want to try weed.

I'm atheist, so I haven't gotten involved in any churches or anything like that. But I have been doing a lot of reading on physics/cosmology/evolution, etc so maybe that counts as something.

As far as using the word worldly, I insist on correcting my wife every time she says it. The correct term is "normal." She protested the first time but had to concede that normal people definitely have the numbers on JWs and that's what defines normal, so there's really no argument.

34

What do you think is the source of your consciousness? Can it be copied or transferred?

by EndofMysteries in

this seems to be a question that even scientifically is still in the air.

right now your consciousness, is it the physical part of the brain?

the electrical signals in the brain?

OneEyedJoe

It seems that this is more a discussion of theseus' paradox than it is anything to do with consciousness specifically.