I don't know about 40th birthdays, but I was given a birthday card and present for my 21st birthday, by a very faithful and long-standing pioneer sister... right in the middle of the hall, and no-one batted an eyelid... apart from me, I was shocked, lol
dorayakii
JoinedPosts by dorayakii
-
19
JWs celebrating their 40th birthday?
by M.J. in.
i heard that its common for jws in a certain congregation to make a big deal when someone turns 40--to the point that they actually throw a party.. is this something that happens out there?.
i just thought it sounded pretty odd.
-
-
-
41
The Challange of Faith
by truth_be_told ini stumbled on this site dong some research, i post now only for those you have not sinned against jehovah's holy spirit, since only jehovah knows this, some value might be taken form this.
i currently serve as the service overseer in my congregation, i have been an elder for over 10 years.. the fundmental issue that challanges every jw faith at some point are the imperfections of the wtbs, & those that take the lead sometimes make huge errors.
as a third generation jw with a huge network of elders, i have heard many bad things about those that take the lead.. some of these have effected myself and my family, this is the test, no different than what job faced, but it is more on the emotional and mental level.
-
-
dorayakii
You can 't survive as a JW if you can't chalk these things up to imperfection and move on, no matter how devasting they might be.
Well, you can't survive as a Catholic if you don't chalk their faults up to imperfection and move on either. The problem is that it is simply not ethical to put the malhandling of paedophilia, or the false 607 doctrine, or the Watchtower's "prostitution" with the UN, or the unnecessary and damaging blood doctrine, all down to "human imperfection".
Don't try to give me a sop story about how the percentage of correct doctrines that the Watchtower teaches in comparison with the Catholic Church emancipates the Watchtower from culpability. No matter how many "true-teachings" are taught, this does not in any way excuse that type of behaviour: Two wrongs don't make a right and the publishers should not be expected to "do as I say, not as I do"...
...don't tell me that the only real Christian love is to be found among JWs... loving people are found in other Churches and among atheists.... and there are some really horrible individuals in the WT Organisation, as well as in the "world"... that arguement doesn't hold water either...
...and please don't tell me that the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Organisation are fundamentally different, or to be viewed differently. This is a kind of double standard, when these things are commited by the Catholics, they are denounced as the evil harlot of Babylon from whom we should "get out". However, when the Watchtower commits these things, we are expected to call it "human imperfection" and move on. This is hypocrisy and I'm afraid it is just not on.
-
18
The Goof with the Troof (in the spirit of the Cat in the Hat)
by AlmostAtheist ini read "cat in the hat" to zach tonight and became inspired.
you be the judge if it was "inpsired of demons", "inpsired of god", or just gas.
the sun did not shine.. it was a miserable day.. life seemed so empty.. just so cold and so gray.. .
-
-
dorayakii
Pure genius
-
40
My God, this is outragous - HP Sauce to be made in Netherlands, not Britain
by Simon inhp sauce is the sauce to have with a fry-up at breakfast.
not like that horrible american ketchup nonsense.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/05/10/hp-british.html.
-
-
dorayakii
We don't need manufacturing to support the economy, we can all work in call centres, selling each other stuff we can buy with our credit cards. ; That is all we need to have a healthy economy, isn't it?
Even the call centres are being moved abroad, especially to places like India. Have you called up one recently? You used to be greated with a friendly Glaswegian, now you're greated with a friendly Indian... who is actually *IN* India!!
-
21
You might be an Islmamist if......
by Shining One in.....you go wacky and kill people because of some offending cartoons in a newspaper!
ah, just like abaddon and other libiots like to say, "it's just the culture, not the religion that's evil.
" why don't they say that about the cult they came out of (jws)?
-
-
dorayakii
America is the most 'Christianist' country and this nation has the most freedom that any government as ever allowed. Hmmm, go figure!
Well, the level of Christianity that a government has, is in no way directly related to the amount of freedoms that it allows...About 100-200 years ago, before the United States began to smother the Earth, Great Britain was the most 'Christianist' country, with Queen Victoria whose title included "Empress of India" and "Defender of the Faith". Yet, although being a Christian nation, Great Britian spread its Empire, annihilating indigenous cultures, languages and peoples. Eventually admittedly leading to civilisation in some areas, but mostly leaving in its wake, broken nation-states such as India/Pakistan and most of war-torn, sub-Saharan Africa which are still trouble-spots to this day.
About 500 years ago, Spain was the most 'Christianist' country. Yet it travelled to the "New World" and murdered countless indiginous people, sometimes wiping out the whole population in a few years (eg. the original inhabitants of the Island of Xamaca, aka modern Jamaica). So don't you even dare come to me and say Christianity is an historicaly peaceful religion.
The real reason why America has allowed much freedom is quite the opposite from your claims of Christian influence. It has allowed more freedoms simply because it was based on *not* being so dogmatic about religion. It allowed people to choose what religion they wanted, if any... and this withdrawal from fundamentalism allowed people to embrace research, science and progress.
The freedoms gained by the French Revolution (although imperfect, but much better than the situation under the Catholic Church and the Monarchy of the "Kingdom of France") were also gained through a shedding of suffocating religious dictates and an embracing of religion as a mere cultural addition to society. This is the real reason Islam appears to be a dangerous religion, because the vast majority of its countries have not demoted Islam from an institution which runs the government to merely a precious, historical and cultural heritage. In my humble opinion, i can see a lot of existing problems resolved if the transition is run to its completion in the Western world.
I do believe that the roots of much Western morality is found in Chritianity, *but* in view of the fact that much was also taken from Greek and Roman paganism, it does not make Chritianity any more superior than any other religion. Religion was the vehicle of civilisation, not its driving force. Circumstances and political climate could just have easily made Islam the religion of civilisation, and Christianity a barbaric suicide bombers cult.
Violence is not necessarily an intrinsic part of any religion, otherwise you could claim that violence is intrinsic to Christiantiy which has indeed "gone wacky and killed people". It burned, murdered and arrested astronomers and scientists for publishing theses on why the Earth was round, or revolved around the sun, and during a more civilised age, merely slandered their findings on biology and evolution etc... Eventually though, the determination of European scientists, (some with and some without Christian beliefs) managed to break through this religiosity to bring about industry and technology. Many honestly believed they were making our world a better place, the nationalistic and religious governments used (and continue to use) that technology for their own gain.
What i also find strange is your rejection of the Old Testament, well, your New Testament god is the same as the Old Testament god is he not? Or did he just come into existance in the first century AD? How do you explain his personality change from a god who instructs people to rip foetuses out of pregnat pagan women, to a god of peace and love who saved us?
Don't whine to me about the middle ages, Old Testament or anything else about Chrsitianity.
Well i'm afraid i have to whine, because all these thing did take place if history is to be believed. All you seem to accept are the peaceful parts of Christian history: the early Church, when there was only a handful of peaceful followers, and the modern world, where the once great and powerful Church has little influence over world affairs. Everything inbetween that, and before that, you reject. You ignore Christianity's violent history, yet you attack the violence in Islam... and you do it when there are no Muslims here to defend their faith.
Listen to history, and do not reject "the middle ages, Old Testament or anything else about Chrsitianity" just because it does not fit into your world-view. The world is not black-and-white, so I'm not saying that faith and religion is always evil in every circumstance, no. What I am saying is that religion, like science, can sometimes be dangerous, and sometimes healing... but when it is dangerous, its bloody dangerous, and there is no difference between the potential dangerosity of Christianity and that of Islam.
-
75
Atheists Worst Nightmare!
by SickofLies ini don't know how i ever doubted that intelligent design was correct!
after watching a video involving kirk cameron, i now see the error of my ways, and will be tithing 50% of my income to the church every month out of contrition.. .
you want to know the mighty argument that changed my views, and my life, forever?
-
-
dorayakii
"When I look at a building, how can I know there was a build-ERR? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can i know there was a build-ERR?... Well the building is absolute proof there was a build-ERR. I couldn't want better proof there was a build-ERR"
"When I look at a painting, how can I know there was a paint-ERR? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can i know there was a paint-ERR?... Well the painting is absolute proof there was a paint-ERR. I couldn't want better proof there was a paint-ERR"
BWAHAHAHA his accent is funny....
but seriously now, although i lean more towards atheisms than agnosticism, i believe that it really is physically and philosophically impossile to prove either that a God does or does not exist, so i try not to get into arguements with creationists. Although i believe the evidence points more toward there not being a God, i believe trying to prove there is not one is an exercise in futility.
By way of comparison, the complexity of many languages by which we can describe both concrete and abstract concepts appears to have been invented by a council. The Latin case system is a prime example... this seemingly elegant system has been proven to be a result of the decay of auxilairies, which themselves are the decay of abstract verbs, which themselves are the decay of concrete verbs. All language, with its thousands of word-categories, phonological systems and varieties, is likely a decay of concrete nouns, verbs and the two cardinal demonstratives (this, that). This is a pattern seen even in recorded language history, which is projected into pre-historical times and is able to expalin how language cold even have evolved from a series of grunts, (as long as those grunts were distinctly unique and at one point corresponded to a handful of concrete objects and simple actions). So an outward appearance of complexity does not necessarily dictate the presence of a creator. In language, the evidence points toward chaos and disorder *creating* order in a condenced, rich and convenient form (a theory propagated in "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher).... The comparison is not 100% relevant, but shows to a certain extent, how complexity can arise from simplicity in a medium which we use daily without thinking...
...but how do we know that syntax, semantics and pragmatics were not place in our brains by a creator, ie. the Tower of Babel story? Well, we don't. Trying to prove or disprove the Tower of Babel is an exercise in futility... The creator of these proto-languages *could* have invented them and implanted them in the brains or the tower build-ERRS, with the corresponding "proof" that these languages already were spoken before and changed and evolved from a corresponding ancestor, to their contemporary forms, how do we know? The fact is, it very well could have happened that way, but... but I chose to believe that the evidence points toward there not being a creator of language... i believe that the Tower of Babel explanation contains too many ifs and buts and is surrounded by stories of other "unlikely" events (and by "unlikely" i mean not relevant or current to my personal experience)...
Think of it this way, how do we know that history was not implanted in our brains, and that everything we remember did not happen but was merely emplanted in our brains to make us believe we are part of some glorious civilisation (eg. 1984, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale [Total Recall] The Truman Show, Matrix, Dark City)? The simple truth is that, depending on the potence and benevolence of the hypothetical creator of these scenarios, we cannot be 100% sure... in fact, we cannot even be 1% sure. This makes the arguement for or against a God an exercise in futility... all we can do is gather evidence and come to theory. There is no point in being dogmatic about that theory or trying to convince others of its veracity.
I agree with creationists that the mere existance of all the viruses, diseases, illnesses that befall us don't necessarily prove that there wasn't a designer (although they lend enormous weight to that hypothesis). However, i don't believe the arguement that we ate a fruit and "fell from grace" is adequate or satifactory to explain away the presence of these problems, especially if one makes grandiose claims of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience for ones God. Again the "God" explanation to me contains too many ifs and buts and is surrounded by a plethora of stories and fables about snakes and trees that is just not relevant to my daily understanding of the world, it has nothing to do with my personal experience. Therefore i chose not to believe in the "God " theory, i choose to believe that diseases, illness and syndromes result from either imperfect or mutated reproduction, or macro- and micro-organisms being in competition with each other.
That is all that needs to be proven, going beyond that, for me, is an effort in futility, but i will not argue with a creationist, because their mind is different from mine, the way they see evidence is different, they may have a propensity to believe in a God, just as I have a propensity not to. Once a person is sure, it is unlikely that any amount of "evidence" will pursuade either party to change their view. Even though definately an atheist, i still cannot be dogmatic, or imperious with my beliefs. If the fact that a banana has 5 outer sides and the circle resulting from our index finger and thumb forming a ring has 5 inner sides is enough for some people, fine. If the complexity of the eye or the brain is enough for other people, fine. I'm not against faith or belief, but i am against dogmatism and coersion
The video is a lot of speclation and belief - that's what evolution is. "Could be this, might be that". Oh, all evolution had to do is stick a lense in there. How'd that happen?
This demonstrates a key difference between evolutionists and creationists. I think it is a good thing to speculate, instead of stating categorically and dogmatically that something is true. "Could be this, might be that" is intrinsically better than "the Bible says this so that is true".
It is better to decide what the facts are on evidence, and even when evidence is prsented, to be flexible as to what could have happened. It is harmful to decide what the facts are *before* the evidence is found. Even more harmful to try to manipulate evidence to fit into an ancient book. For many creationists the Bible must be true, whatever the evidence. When new evidence is discovered, it is squeezed to try and fit in with biblical stories. Their beliefs are always so sure and never change... There is a big difference between looking for evidence and formulating a theory based on it, and looking for evidence to try to prove an existing theory.
-
26
Kids referring to older ones as AUNTIE or UNCLE
by lowden ini don't know about other patrs of the world but in the uk, youngsters were expected to refer to older ones as auntie or uncle.
i publicly told my children not to do this, i thought it was reeeeally creepy.
my main reason for this is that i think it creates trust in people that are strangers to the family unit and for some kids, it's part of the grooming process for molestation.
-
-
dorayakii
I never really thought of it as a Brit thing either, it was just so normal to call almost everyone in the cong, "Uncle or Aunty so-and-so".
As a youth, it's a painful stage to go from calling people in the cong aunty and uncle to their first names, usually it's a phase which has much mumbling and talking behind my hand!
I found this too... as i got older, one lady told me not to call her "Aunty" anymore, so i stopped calling anyone Uncle or Aunty, and started saying Brother or Sister so-and-so... at which point i got told off by another lady who i'd known for years, for calling her "Sister", she thought it was a little bit cold and distant, and told me to call her "Aunty"...
Sister can only be used with the surname, whereas "Aunty must be used with the first name, so i got really confused, started for a while calling people things like "Uncle Smith" and "Sister Ruth" which sounded decidedly strange... then I stopped calling anyone anything for a while, until i was able to strike the balance right...
It often depends on age, but equally as often on the length of time the person has known you. At one point i could call a 30 year old woman who i'd known for a long time "Aunty x" but a 45 year old woman who had just moved into the cong "Sister x"... In the end, i only called the very senior people in the congregation "Brother" or "Sister". I think a certain amount of grey hair warrented such a title.
-
33
Increase of war--staggering statements from the Really Teach book
by M.J. inthe "bible teach" book, on p.89 says:millions of people have been killed in wars during the past century.
one british historian wrote: "the 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history...it was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organised and armed conflict somewhere.
" a report from the worldwatch institute states: "three times as many people fell victim to war in [the 20th] century as in all the wars from the first century ad to 1899.
-
-
dorayakii
"Three times as many people fell victim to war in [the 20th] century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899."
This statement is meaningless unless it takes into account the total world population. In just 12 years from 1987 to 1999, the world population increased from 5,000 to 6,000 million.
In 1927 the population had reached 2,000 million, and in 1802 it had just reached 1,000 million. The worlds population has therefore sextupled in only 200 years. In 1750 the worlds population was a mere 791 million.
Indeed, taking an unanalytical laymans glance at a population graph, it seems like the quantity of people who lived in the 20th century almost equals or probably surpasses the entire population of people who ever lived in the preceding 19 centuries.
The Watchtower statement is therefore sensationalist, senseless and risible.
-
26
Kids referring to older ones as AUNTIE or UNCLE
by lowden ini don't know about other patrs of the world but in the uk, youngsters were expected to refer to older ones as auntie or uncle.
i publicly told my children not to do this, i thought it was reeeeally creepy.
my main reason for this is that i think it creates trust in people that are strangers to the family unit and for some kids, it's part of the grooming process for molestation.
-
-
dorayakii
Come to think of it it IS quite creepy. I was always told to call everyone above around 25 Uncle or Aunty so-and-so, it was just normal to me.
Even a few years after my step-mum married my dad, i still called her Aunty ******, i didn't realise they were so annoyed at it, until a family-meeting was called to analyse my reaction to the whole re-marriage thing.
There came a time when was too old to call everyone Uncle or Aunty and just started to use their first names, which felt weird. I still refer to some older ones who i knew way back then as "uncle" or "aunty", depending on how old they are, and how long i've known them.
Don't y'all in the US do that?
-
25
What Bible Characters Fascinated You?
by MissBehave ini grew up like alot of you on my book of bible stories with all the beautiful illustrations .
thinking back the characters that i was most fascinated with were those like jezebel, delilah, queen vashti etc.
being a young teenage girl, to me they seemed way more interesting.
-
-
dorayakii
I was never endeared to any Bible character to be honest, they were always colourless, emotionless, boring stories to me, even as a child with the Bible Story book. I had absolutely no interest in any Bible characters I thought they were all a bunch of pompous twats.
Even at a youngish age, i was highly sensitive to the injustices in the Bible. During the family Bible study i experienced a growing but silent indignation at the treatment of people like:
- Achan who stole a robe and some gold and whose whole family got massacred for it.
- Isaac who had to go through the terrifying ordeal of carrying wood up a mountain, and then at the last minute bound up by his father believing he was going to be murdered viciously.
- Lot's wife who merely turned around as was brutally murdered by being turned to salt.
- Uzzah who was killed on the spot for trying to stabalise the Ark of the Covenant.