binadub

Joined

• started 25 topics
• posted 381 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by binadub

• 
  22

  Dear Dad

  by Euphemism in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  happy father's day to all the dads out there!

  i wrote this letter to my dad.

  i'm not going to send it, but wanted to share it with people who i know will understand it.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Hello Dan:

  Remember me, in Boise, when you were coming out? I came to your and Epiphany's reception, and then met "Blondie" at your apartment before you moved away.

  ~Binadub (aka Ros)
• 
  106

  Plaintiff awarded in punitive damages -21M & 1 dollar. Total award, 28M & 1 dollar. Here's more info

  by AndersonsInfo in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  the plaintiff, candace conti's goal from the very beginning was to bring enough attention to this problem to incentivize watchtower to change its policy of secrecy.

  the award can be explained as it was decided: separate compensatory and punitive damages.

  the punitive award is established in law to punish wrongdoing - here, the conscious disregard for others - and deter that conduct in the future.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Simon:

  It is impossible to become an ex-exJW. :-)

  ~Binadub
• 
  23

  The Emphatic Diaglott, still being published by the WTB&TS for the benefit of ... NOT JWs but for Christadelphians, Church of God Holiness and Abrahamic Faith folks.

  by illoowy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there are english speaking denominations that actively use the emphatic diaglott.

  the wtb&ts is the only publisher providing new printings of this nt interlinear.

  the r&f jehovah's witness doesn't use the diaglott (not even the jw version of it "kingdom interlinear translation" that supplanted it).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Illoowy:

  Did you see the "Viewer" questions to you on CC?

  ~Binadub (aka Ros)
• 
  58

  How did you long-timers do it before the internet / Ray Franz books / abundant information?

  by irondork in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  with all the tools and information at the disposal of newly awakened ones, it's still no easy task coming to terms with the magnitude of it all.

  it still takes a lot of gut-wrenching time and effort to get to the point where you are sure you made the right decision to leave.. .

  how did you long-timers (old-timers, respectfully) manage it without crisis of conscience, christian freedom, jwn, jwfacts, freeminds, access to thousands of fellow survivors with stories just like yours?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  I was a convert with a little evangelical experience before the JWs. The ladies who studied with me were also converts, fairly new to the Watchtower. I think it is a world of difference for people who were not raised in the religion, who had already been raised with holidays, going to other churches, and having "worldly" friends. I also think the Watchtower religion was much more biblically based prior to the 1975 failed predictions. I was so thrilled to find out there was no such thing as hellfire for eternity--and I really studied it to understand it. And the "new earth" was something really new, but there it was in the Bible. And Jehovah's Name, etc., etc. And I loved the regular assemblies--so different from other religions. Knorr, Fred Franz, Covington and other notables were at the district assemblies in those days.
  I got baptized inside of 3 months from when I began studying.

  But then I started to notice the differences between me and blindly-devoted JWs. They didn't prove the teachings, they just accepted them. I became inactive after about 6 years but kept waiting for new light on some doctrines that I had decided were not what the scriptures taught. I really did want it to be true, but as new books were published, there was more and more that I didn't agree with, including the expectations for 1975. So it was when a person close to me was to be disfellowshipped for having tried but failed to follow the organizations strict adherence that in the spring of 1975 I thought, "It's time for me to admit it--I just do not believe it." Yet, I still believed a lot of the doctrinal things I had learned and was not sorry for the experience. For that reason I wasn't drawn to other churches, especially any who taught "hellfire."

  For 10 years, I thought I was the only exJW on Earth who believed one could leave the Watchtower and be a Christian. I used to pray about it--alone. I began taking the emblems (alone) because I concluded all Christians should. It was watching TV one night that I was flipping through TV channels and happened upon the John Ankerberg show when he was interviewing a panel of former JW Bethelites. And they advertised Ray Franz's book. I was exuberant with surprise! I ordered the book and contacted the author, which led to association with numerous people associated with the Franz's and those who came out at that time. Before the Internet, BRCI (BRCI.org) was the main international fellowship of former Jehovah's Witnesses. They did a tremendous support work for exJWs before the Internet came to the fore.

  ~Binadub (aka Ros)
• 
  21

  Cedars - Re: Richard Dawkins Is Agnostic? Thread

  by binadub in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  cedars:.

  your original thread got too far off track so i decided to refresh it for my question.. i'm wondering what you think about anthony flew (rip).

  incidently to james_woods (if you read this thread):.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Still thinking:

  From the not-believing perspective, what do you think of Steven Meyer's logic?

  ~Binadub
• 
  21

  Cedars - Re: Richard Dawkins Is Agnostic? Thread

  by binadub in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  cedars:.

  your original thread got too far off track so i decided to refresh it for my question.. i'm wondering what you think about anthony flew (rip).

  incidently to james_woods (if you read this thread):.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Hi Phizzy:

  Thanks (perhaps to your wife?) for your "fair and balanced" response.

  I just finished watching a video lecture, "The Collapse of Intelligent Design" by Kenneth Miller, because a former poster on this forum, AlanF, suggested it on my other forum. (I think it may have been suggested here, too.)

  It presents the other side of the picture in being vehemently opposed to ID being taught in the schools because it is perceived as being against science and against evolution. A choice between either God or science, but not both. I think that is unrealistic and unfair. Miller himself is Catholic, and many notable scientists (e.g., Dr. Francis Collins) are religious and also believe in evolution.

  I like your wife's reason for siding with ID, but I also think Steven Meyer presents very compelling scientific evidence.
  Nevertheless, I agree that in of itself, ID is reasoning and mathematical theory based on scientific observation rather than being the science itself.

  ~Binadub
• 
  21

  Cedars - Re: Richard Dawkins Is Agnostic? Thread

  by binadub in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  cedars:.

  your original thread got too far off track so i decided to refresh it for my question.. i'm wondering what you think about anthony flew (rip).

  incidently to james_woods (if you read this thread):.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Hi Phizzy:

  I don't know if Meyer is trying to get ID taught in science classes (maybe he is--I don't know).
  I think it should be taught, but not as science. It rightfully belongs in philosophy, imo.

  When you say "there is not one shred of scientific evidence" for ID, I think you may mean there is not a shred of "proof."
  Did you happen to watch the video? What Meyer presented was ALL scientific "evidence"--just not proof.

  Or maybe it would help to know your definition of scientific "evidence."

  ~Binadub
• 
  13

  Changes in Australian legislation - likely to outlaw shunning in the future?

  by cedars in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some may have missed this post from wary, which has been augmented with some very useful information from lady lee.. here is a link to the original thread:.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/226539/1/http-www-abc-net-au-news-2012-06-03-new-domestic-violence-laws-target-emotional-abuse-4049150.

  assuming i have lady lee's permission, i would like to replicate her comment below:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  I have wondered why U.S. citizens could not sue the Society for "Alienation of affection" or the like.

  I do know that when some have threatened a lawsuit against the WT if they were disfellowshipped, they were not df'd (shunned, but not df'd).

  ~Binadub
• 
  21

  Cedars - Re: Richard Dawkins Is Agnostic? Thread

  by binadub in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  cedars:.

  your original thread got too far off track so i decided to refresh it for my question.. i'm wondering what you think about anthony flew (rip).

  incidently to james_woods (if you read this thread):.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Gd'evening Soft+Gentle, James_Woods, and Cedars:

  I don't know how interested you folks are in ID (intelligent design) theory , but a very interesting scholar, Stephen Meyer, speaking to a distinguished group in London presents the kind of scientific factual information that I think influenced Anthony Flew to abandon his atheist philosophy. The video is about a hour-and-a-half, so I had to watch it in spurts, but if your mind runs along this line of interest, it is excellent. I have no idea what Professor Meyer's personal religious views are. Here's the link:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs

  If you do watch it, all or even in part, I would be interested in your comments. In any case, thanks for your comments so far.

  ~Binadub
• 
  21

  Cedars - Re: Richard Dawkins Is Agnostic? Thread

  by binadub in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  cedars:.

  your original thread got too far off track so i decided to refresh it for my question.. i'm wondering what you think about anthony flew (rip).

  incidently to james_woods (if you read this thread):.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  binadub

  Wikipedia yields that Flew argued in favor of presupposing atheism until empirical evidence of God surfaces.

  That is what Anthony Flew was most noted for most of his professional life. But in 2004 he reportedly had found the "empirical evidence" that caused him to convert to deism. It got a lot of publicity at the time. He died in 2010 at age 87, and here's some excerpt from an article in the April 16, 2010 New York Times about it:

  Antony Flew, an English philosopher and outspoken atheist who stunned and dismayed the unbelieving faithful when he announced in 2004 that God probably did exist, died April 8 in Reading, England. He was 87 and lived in Reading. . . .

  He was best known, however, for his books arguing against the existence of God and for atheistic principles. . . .
  
  In 2004, however, he announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”
  
  In “There Is a God” he explained that he now believed in a supreme intelligence, removed from human affairs but responsible for the intricate workings of the universe. In other words, the divine watchmaker imagined by deists like Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

  Flew did not convert to religion, but evidently did come to a conclusion of a diety creator, somewhat along the line of the Intelligent Design concept as I understand it. What impressed me was that after he was renouned for a lifetime career based on one premise, he was humble enough to change his mind and publish it. Quite an admirable quality for a human me thinks. Most people when they make an ego investment in a premise, you can't change their mind by proving them wrong. :-)

  I was just wondering what you thought about him or what might have led him to his conclusions.

  Thanks,
  ~Binadub