i was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
Hey Terry:
At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself, I was browsing through my old posts and found a thread I started on the subject of the "G" spot. You posted some interesting comments. Check it out (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/95534/1/Do-you-stimulate-your-G-spot). Looking back, it all still makes sense to me. But damn, can I go on and on and on judging from the lengths of my posts. I had a verbal hemorrage and I'm bleedding to this day.
Etude.
i was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
Terry:
The point is not that we (as individuals) don't exist. The problem is that if we embark on a way or means to prove with any degree of certainty that we do, we have a serious problem. I believe I exist. I just can't formally prove it. That's what the philosopher (Rene Descartes) brought up a few centuries ago. In spite of that, I go on and (in order to continue the argument and accept that you exists as well even if I can't prove it), I continue to exchange ideas with people so that I don't end up in that padded cell (even if it's imaginary) like misocup suggested. That's why I acknowledge that we have a brain and that it has something that may be responsible for what we term "spiritual" feelings. I realize that for some this amounts to a bunch of esoteric bullshit, but that’s the way of the world if we dare to keep asking the really tough questions, even about the nature of our own existence.
Etude.
i was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
It’s amazing to find people with the intellectual cojones to admit some tough conclusions, namely that we are physical beings and not the result of some shadow that lives inside of us. Did I get that right from you misocup and streets76? That was not easy for me to admit. Yes, I’m a monist as well. And I was not attempting to justify “spirituality” as something more significant than being left-handed. By mapping it to the brain, it simply means it’s another function (though a higher one in the sense that it involves thought) like feeling pain or wanting sex.
Misocup: You’re right about not crossing into the philosophical line of whether we exist or not. It kinda leads nowhere. But like the man said: “Cogito ergo sum”. That’s hard to argue with even if we can’t prove that anything else exists. So, I was presenting the idea that there’s a consistent commonality within our delusions of life, that poking around in the supposed part of the brain will consistently yield a common delusion. I had to make some basic assumptions. Otherwise, I would never have contributed to this thread and suggest that religion is one thing and spirituality (whatever it means and with all that it encompasses) is another. While I can’t say for sure that any of you exist or that I’m even writing this tidbit and not dreaming it, I must continue to continue to pretend.
Etude.
i was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
Let's not forget that if one can say that “belief is in the mind” that a good argument can be made for feelings and everything else to also be in our mind. In fact, unless one is dualist, all that we are is in our brain/body, including spirituality. I know of someone back in the 70's in New York who believed she could fly out of a 3-story window while under the influence of LSD. That was not a universal experience linked to LSD. But, the “G” spot appears to be universal even if we can't yet determine all that it does and what purpose it serves other than cause or channel those feelings that we associate with “otherness” and a sense of awe at the grandness of the universe. On a more personal level, one of my JW room mates ended up committing two suicide attempts because he was seeing monsters and hearing voices. Aside from his mind being compromised, I know the JW really screw up his head to the point that he could no longer stand the guilt and tried to off himself. It's that very pathology of the brain that has led to discoveries like the so-called “G” Spot and how alternate pathways in the brain can be created to replace lost functions.
The helmet I referred to in my previous post has been used to duplicate the same or similar sensations in many an individual. Really, it's a poor man's version of what has been done in the lab many times with more sophisticated equipment. So, I believe we all have the same thing in common to one degree or another. Personally, I don't wonder if there are invisible beings. That definition, by its very nature makes it impossible for one to know if the proof is a sighting. But for me, the existence of receptors and generators in the brain like the “G” spot explain why some people insist that there are aliens out there experimenting on cattle and taking people to their ships in order to create some sort of hybrid babies. That also explains out-of-body experiences, etc, etc. This suggests to me that not only there may be a specific “seat” for “spirituality” in the brain but also for the source of mysticism and a general tendency to want to explain the unexplainable in terms of something extraterrestrial or even heavenly. I'm basing my comments on the work of Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, a behavioral neurologist that made several important discoveries while at U.C. San Diego.
Etude.
im sure the question has been brought up before on this board and i imagine that for many of us the answer is patent.
however, i recently saw a documentary on pbs regarding the mormons and it stated categorically that the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is not a cult.
given that it has its own set of strangeness and history of revision as has the wtbts, could it also (the jw) be considered a main stream, although minor religion?.
onTheWayOut:
but watch out for its danger.
Your are absolutely right. All I need is my own personal experience to realize how dangerous and insidious the WTBTS is. I don't want to call them a “mainstream” religion. I want to call them a cult. The problem is that other opinions that count don't do it for several persuasive reasons. While that may appear to simply be arguing over terms, the classification has its implications out there in the world and it adds legitimacy to these heinous groups. I'd call them every name in the book that would convey the danger and damage they create, plus a few other choice words. That doesn't advance my desire to change minds if I hear in the media that the WTBTS is a mainstream religion. I guess it's time for me to stick a fork in this conversation.
Thanks everybody for you input.
Etude.
im sure the question has been brought up before on this board and i imagine that for many of us the answer is patent.
however, i recently saw a documentary on pbs regarding the mormons and it stated categorically that the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is not a cult.
given that it has its own set of strangeness and history of revision as has the wtbts, could it also (the jw) be considered a main stream, although minor religion?.
Flipper:
I understand. But Steve Hassan is not the only and finalauthority on the subject. If you recall, the reason I started the thread was because I heard this on a program which I respect very much. The comment was about Mormons not being a cult but a world-wide mainstream religion. So, I'm not debating or even contradicting what a cult is or that the JW are a cult. The issue is that other significant individuals disagree with you and me about that. This adds to the legitimacy of the WTBTS. I wondered if there's a better way to fight that perception, not whether it is true or not. Capice?
For example: Read the following opinion:
"Cult" is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity."
 | Theological use: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as:
|
Thus, in its original theological meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers, whether they be Mormons, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, etc.
And....
| Sociological usages:
The primitive Christian movements, including Jewish Christianity, Pauline Christianity and Gnostic Christianity, would have qualified for these meanings of "cult" back in the first century CE. The LDS Church would have qualified as a "cult" in the 1830s shortly after Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ. However, the LDS Church has been established for almost two centuries, and has in excess of 13 million adherents around the world. The sociological definition definitely does not fit. Under this definition, the LDS Church is not a cult. [The emphasis is mine] |
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldscult.htm
Even though a cursory google of the topic will have many, many articles supporting what you and I know to be the case, there are others with some influencial opinion that would argue differently. You and I may disagree with them, but the perception and justification for the contrary is out there and it adds legitimacy to those groups.
Etude.
im sure the question has been brought up before on this board and i imagine that for many of us the answer is patent.
however, i recently saw a documentary on pbs regarding the mormons and it stated categorically that the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is not a cult.
given that it has its own set of strangeness and history of revision as has the wtbts, could it also (the jw) be considered a main stream, although minor religion?.
Flipper:
I feel the same way. But, that's not the point. And, I'm not debating what characteristics constitute a cult. Why do people that can make significant contributions to opinion (i.e. the media and some scholars) don't agree with you and me? That's the perception I want to get to the root of, which may affect my own definitions (no the way I feel about cults, especially the JW). I don't want to just care about what I opine. I want to consider what other people think that differ with my opinion in order to respond appropriately. That's all.
Etude.
i was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
Think it's not innate? I thought someone would have picked up on the "G" Spot thing I wrote about earlier. Well, no big deal. But, check this out.
The Neurology of the Spiritual Experience
and click on the picture.
Etude.
in the june 15th wt it says on page 9 i will just write it out as it is to hard and unbelievable to preface this.
so here it is.. "many who today are members of the christian congregation can tell you that before learning of and adopting jehovah's righteous standards, they lived without moral restrain.
yet, they were unsatisfied and unhappy.
dgp, you make a great point. Although I read Dawkins, it didn't take his observations in order for me to realize that morality does not stem from religion or even from a belief in God. I noticed that early on from the scandals I witnessed at Bethel and from the good life the friends of my unbelieving father led. It didn't take long for me to realize that people will be whatever they will be no matter if they are religious or not.
I'm very curious about the mind process that a JW goes through to convince him or herself that leaving the faith leads to perdition. In my own case, I had fears and apprehensions that I now recognize were aggravated by my familial conditioning and by the threat of eternal death the JW hung upon my head. I envied some people who grew up in a nurturing and secure environment who absolutely refused to drink the Kool-Aid. Having a bit of a discernment, I eventually could not ignore that little voice in the back of my mind actually asking if what I was hearing was true. Alas, I did a lot of ignoring and glossing over some of the obvious incongruities in the religion. I can picture many members of my family taking that Watchtower blue pill right now, with perhaps one exception: my older sister. She's a puzzle. She actually admitted to me that she doesn't agree with the Society that there's anything wrong with celebrating a birthday. Yet, she and her husband are faithful followers. So much so that I can't really argue with them about JW issues. It's not that she can't reason (she's quite intelligent). It's that in this respect, she will refuse even to consider anything negative about the Organization because she certain that they're right, in spite of those little troubling issues. It drives me friggin' insane.
Etude.
i was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
I don't see why it needs to or should or even if it could. In my experience, one has nothing to do with the other. To be more specific: I've known very religious people who are cruel bastards with a significant lack of compassion (many a JW, for example or even a Catholic Mafioso). Then, I've met people with no religious affiliation who are reverent, humane and have a sense that we are more than whatever the cost is of the hand-full of chemicals that make up our bodies.
These days I have a suspicion that since neurologists discovered the “G” (God) spot in our brain, we may well have an innate disposition for the spiritual and maybe even for more. For science, the question of whether it's there to communicate with God or if we tend to communicate with “God” because it's there is an open and probably an unanswerable question (if one could even suggest that the question is in its venue). Still something tells me that we probably need to “feed” or nurture this new 7th sense (or is it part of the old 6th sense?) While individuals like Richard Dawkins (Darwin's rottweiler) cannot successfully explain the universal appeal for god in evolutionary terms, the idea of a verifiable part of the brain that is a center of sorts for spirituality casts doubt on a process (Natural Selection) that would give humans something they apparently absolutely do not need or ever needed.
For me, spirituality is the person while religion is the clothing the person wears. To some people, the cloak of religions is comparable to a fashion statement. To others, it's a source of comfort and protection. For some who have an underdeveloped sense of spirituality but are very religious, it's like having some very fancy clothing to cover up the body but not ever taking a bath.
Many of today's “new age gurus” and other religious writers like Karen Armstrong or Frank Schaeffer have (in a way) abandoned religion (Armstrong was a nun and Schaeffer a fundamentalist Christian) for an apparently more middle-of-the-road approach to spirituality. It seems that this is more important to some people than actual doctrines and specifics about who-did-what-when. Either way, for me organized religion really sucks.
Etude.
