"it's the intent that counts not the result.".
i have been out of the jw organization for some 22 years now and i sometimes get a reminding jolt out the hoops that some will jump through to make their religion make sense to them.
the first line in this post is what a jw on the street here in salinas told me on saturday when trying to justify the society's history of false prophecies.
What about the "intent" of the Catholic church? What about the "intent" of Budhist or Hindus or Muslims?
Good intentions are not an indicator of truth or worthieness to a cause or claim. Intentions are only as good as the information upon which they are based. And intentions based upon bad information can lead to disasterous effect.
first off, i am so happy that " tomo iii" is catching.
i dont know who said it first, but it's awesome.. i want to see him at a rc and say, " yo!!
tomo!!
Why doesn't God do his own damn work and warn people himself. He's the one whos blood guilty.
the more religious a person is, the more likely they are to suffer from hippocampal atrophy.
i guess a lifetime of cognitive dissonance can really take its toll.. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3adoi%2f10.1371%2fjournal.pone.0017006#pone-0017006-t002.
(early symptoms of hippocampal atrophy can include difficulty recalling the recent past and disorientation.
The more religious a person is, the more likely they are to suffer from Hippocampal Atrophy. I guess a lifetime of cognitive dissonance can really take its toll.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017006#pone-0017006-t002
( Early symptoms of hippocampal atrophy can include difficulty recalling the recent past and disorientation. It may also be marked by a difficulty in performing spacial navigation, which generally equates to a tendency to get lost, even in familiar environments.)
so is it possible to understand a reason and not respect it?
shouldn't understanding lead to a respect of the reasons and actions?.
or can you respect the reasons and actions without understanding them?.
I do not respect actions that lead to unneccissary harm. People can be perfectly sincere and yet preform the most atroccious actions. When people of good intentions end up doing bad things - like letting their kids die because they refuse to allow blood - I am capable of pitying them. But I would never respect them.
In the case of your Niece and her boyfriend, they aren't hurting anyone and are, most likely, promoting goodwill and happiness. That, is something I DO respect!
i'm not going to list all the changes here that have happened in 2014, most of you who frequent the boards know about them.. in reference to anthony morris' talk, i can't help feel that the organization is behaving so abnormally out of character for itself that it is bewildering even to ex jws.. cultish behavior is perfectly normal for cults, but whats happened this year is so far out of whack it beggars belief.. what do they think they are doing?
are they psyching jws up for some major announcement?.
i can't help but feel that something really strange is going on, this does not feel like the regular "special announcements" followed by articles in the watchtower.. .
I think the WTS failed predictions about the "last generation" is starting to take it's toll. The core justification and validation of the Society has always been the cleansing that supposedly took place in 1919. The fact that the world still has not ended - and has no intentions of ending anytime soon - is a real pain in their ass. Even the GB must be getting tired of their own mantra "any day now."
Wars are not becoming anymore frequent. Earthquakes are not increasing. And the UN shows no signs of waging a worldwide attack on "false" religion.
On top of that, they've realized their business model is not sustainable. People are giving less of their money and spending more of their time doing other things. Their only growth is in third world countries which is why so many of the publications have been simplified and the doctrine has been so dumbed down (to the dismay of countless witnesses). The JWs sense of community is the only thing they have left going for them (let's get together twice a week and talk about how much better we are than everyone else and all those who didn't bother to show up today).
The WTS is trying to capatalize on the JWs sense of connection as much as they can. It's too early to tell, but I hope this whole thing backfires on them spectacularly. Instead of attracting new people to the BORG they may end up alienating the base they already have. Perhaps the JWs will start realizing they can socialize with people outside of the BORG. That groupthink isn't neccissary - or even desirable- for friendships.
Call me crazy, but I predict within the next ten to twelve years we're going to see a mass exodus from this religion that will put 1975 to shame. Once the growth stops and the shrinking begins there's going to be a snowball effect. Why stay in if all your friends and family are out?
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
How would you feel about that traveler?
How would you answer to that student?
If they were following your initial premise (You have to have a SOURCE behind all resources), when applied to your anology would be, "Every flight has to have a flight that preceeds it."
Following your intial justification for the need of a creator, the question (what flight comes before the first flight) would be perfectly valid. You cannot say "everything needs a creator therefore God exists." And then cry foul when people ask "who created God?" This is known as Special Pleading: You make up some arbitrary claim to support your conclusion and then try and shield your conclusion from the very arbitrary claim that YOU made up.
YOUR claim is either true or it's NOT true - and can be expressed in the following way:
1.) Everything needs a creator
2.) Everything doesn't need a creator
If you're right and, #1 is true, then everything needs a creator - which means that God too needs a creator. If your wrong, and #2 is true, then everything doesn't need a creator - which means there is no need for God. Which is it?
part 1. .
she was suspecting me that i'm no longer interested in the borg, and she was trying to get a confession.
this is how our conversation went out.
From you discussion you posted, I think your friend would do well to learn that sincerity is not the same thing as humility. And a person can be sincere while simultaneously being arrogant.
Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. Claiming to have abilities or knowledge that one doesn't actually have.
Just because she has good intentions does not mean she has good facts. Sincerity is not a metric for determining the truth of a claim.
Edit: Seems like ablebodiedman might need to learn this too.
i'm researching on the common trait of mostly every religion coming from pre-humanist times, and that would be, the notion of "revelation", that is, that at the beginning of every [i say this with caution because i'm admitting to exceptions] religion there is some sort of "revelation" from supernatural being(s) of some sort.. my question is: do you know of any example of religions from the past that you can confidently say that were exempt from "revelation"?
this is not the same as asking if there were religions without gods, or religions of nature.
i'm not even considering what i understand as philosophical-ethical systems, such as confucionism or platonism my purpose is to find out if, at the starting point of all religions of the past, there is a "revelation", or merely "observation / contemplation".
Wait, are you looking for a religion whos founder didn't claim revelation? Or are you looking for a religion where its founder wasn't later mythologized? The two are seperate criteria.
i'm researching on the common trait of mostly every religion coming from pre-humanist times, and that would be, the notion of "revelation", that is, that at the beginning of every [i say this with caution because i'm admitting to exceptions] religion there is some sort of "revelation" from supernatural being(s) of some sort.. my question is: do you know of any example of religions from the past that you can confidently say that were exempt from "revelation"?
this is not the same as asking if there were religions without gods, or religions of nature.
i'm not even considering what i understand as philosophical-ethical systems, such as confucionism or platonism my purpose is to find out if, at the starting point of all religions of the past, there is a "revelation", or merely "observation / contemplation".
The story you're refernecing about Zoroastrianism was added centuries later and was not part of Zarathushtra's teachings. The Gathas are universally acknowledged to be his actual words (one of very few writings by the actual founder of an ancient religion). So we can seperate the actual person from the legends that followed later. In the Gatha, Zarathushtra never claims nor implies God spoke to him. To the contrary, his poem was a prayer of sorts to the Gods.
"Zarathushtra's theology is always projected with a moral dimension, Asha always carries the joint meaning of Truth and Righteousness. Thus we comprehend the world as an intrinsically good, divine creation, contaminated by evil, but capable of being perfected by the actions of humans by reason of their capacity of moral choice. Human action can promote good and reject evil leading to its ultimate banishment from the world, though it may continue to exist as a conceptual possibility."
"The focus of Gathic teaching is one of a world afflicted with suffering, inequity, and imperfection, the goal being to transform it and bring it to perfection, that is, in consonance with Truth, by the comprehending power of the Good-Mind. Such a perfecting world would progressively bring satisfaction to all the good creation. And it would inaugurate the desired kingdom, Khshathra Vairya, where the ideal society would manifest peaceful social existence in which all interests would be harmonized and balanced in a just order, for that is an implication of Asha. This achievement depends on enlightened human thinking and right-minded human resolve."
- Dr. Kaikhosrov Irani
Hope that clears things up a bit :)
i'm researching on the common trait of mostly every religion coming from pre-humanist times, and that would be, the notion of "revelation", that is, that at the beginning of every [i say this with caution because i'm admitting to exceptions] religion there is some sort of "revelation" from supernatural being(s) of some sort.. my question is: do you know of any example of religions from the past that you can confidently say that were exempt from "revelation"?
this is not the same as asking if there were religions without gods, or religions of nature.
i'm not even considering what i understand as philosophical-ethical systems, such as confucionism or platonism my purpose is to find out if, at the starting point of all religions of the past, there is a "revelation", or merely "observation / contemplation".
Jainism is one of the oldest religions and I believe it meets your requirments of no purported revelation, enlightenment from a supernatural origin, or mystical connection with a supernatural world. The worlds oldest known religion, Zoroastrianism, also claims no devine revelation. It's founder, Zoroaster, based the religion off his philosophical views of creation, existance, and the condition of free will.
