"Any other apostates out there caught out by tonight's talk? Think it was a deliberate ploy to flush us out? "
If you're sitting inside a Kingdumb Hall you are already INSIDE a toilet bowl, so "flushing you out" would be a mechanical impossibility.
my god i thought i was going to have a heart attack!
why didn't someone warn me there was going to be a talk on "how to identify an apostate" tonight?.
well i am just lucky the brother didn't mention the tell tale signs of firstly, clutching your chest at the surprise when you hear title of the talk, then grabbing hold of the seat like you are on a nose-diving airplane for its duration.
"Any other apostates out there caught out by tonight's talk? Think it was a deliberate ploy to flush us out? "
If you're sitting inside a Kingdumb Hall you are already INSIDE a toilet bowl, so "flushing you out" would be a mechanical impossibility.
i've written on here several times about how the witnesses have a really shallow spirituality.
remember how there were spiritual activities, "sacred service" as it was often called - bible study, prayer, meetings and field service - and everything else was considered not a spiritual activity, not sacred service?
they toyed with expanding the 'sacred service' definition for a short time.
"It is strange that it was only when I left religion and stopped believing in a god that I began to fully begin to understand the true spiritual nature of humankind."
Given that all human experiences, real or imagined, are ultimately reducible to neurochemical synaptic communication, I would be curious if anybody could provide a non-nebulous, meaningful definition of "spirituality" that can be demonstrated beyond mere sociocultural conditioning. We have now even identified the precise regions of the cerebral cortex responsible for generating so-called "religious" experiences.
IMHO, "spirituality" is just the ugly cousin of "theism" and spirituality by its very definition necessitates a belief in the supernatural, which would make a believer in said phenomena a "pan-deist" or possibly "agnostic" but certainly not an "atheist".
I would certainly agree their is a collective, sociocultural "spiritual" trait present in human culture, but I strongly disagree that there exists any intrinsic "spiritual" nature in modern homo sapiens that cannot be explained by cultural conditioning.
I would further add that those insisting on using terminology such as "spritual" or "divine essence", etc etc, are simply replacing one form of psychological anesthesia (belief in a sky-god) with another (belief in some ill-defined, nebulous "force" that represents some hypothetical "pure" essence)......
history has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
Psychology is not a science. Psychiatry is not a science. There are behavioral studies, experiments and data involved but no predictability as in the REAL sciences.
LMAOROTFL !!!! I think you've been reading too much "Scientology" literature Terry, or perhaps watching too many Tom Cruise interviews.
Both Psychology and Psychiatry are UNEQUIVOCALLY hard scientific disciplines that strictly adhere to classic modes of experimentation requiring hypotheses, experimentation, null hypotheses, dependent AND independent variables. ALL research findings in BOTH fields are submitted to peer-reviewed journals. If you have any lingering doubts about this simply take a look at any of the following independent journals: American Journal of Psychiatry, Neuropsychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Molecular Psychiatry, Psychiatric Genetics, and I could add HUNDREDS more. Since I have personally published my work in TWO of the above journals, I can assure the editorial and review process is as rigorous as those found in any other field of scientific inquiry.
Your comment regarding "predictability in the REAL sciences" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the scientific method common amongst those who have never performed a scientific experiment or had their research peer-reviewed and published. We DONT make "predictions" a priori....this would be the opposite intellectual approach one would make when designing an experiment. We ALWAYS assume our results are UNPREDICTABLE, which is precisely why we use the concept of the "null hypothesis". "Predictability" falls within the domain of Tarot card readers, not scientists formulating an experimental program.
according to jw theory all those taking the memorial emblems are part of the body of christ and therefore should participate in the status and functions of the anointed.
if we are to say that some of these "anointed" are just fruitcakes or spiritually immature, what about all the rest?
why are they so invisible, nowhere heard or seen contributing to these anointed functions?
"frannie, and greendawn, just to clarify: I'm not saying that I haven't shared, and even may now share, your feelings about the motives of the men who lead the WTS...but, at least for myself, what I see in these feelings about those men, and those who preceded them, is nothing more than my mere conjecture. Having met some of them, I could just as easily assert that they are completely sincere in what they believe, and in what they do...and I'd be equally without evidence for such."
And so what? Greendawn and Frannie have simply stated their opinions based upon their experiences and the data they have available. I've met a couple of them too, and in my opinion, they came across as arrogant pricks with messiah complexes. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, but we are all free to create our own estimations. Ultimately, we must base our opinions of others motivations on conjectures we derive from observations and evidence.
These individuals, COLLECTIVELY, oversee policies and enforce doctrines that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent children and adults over decades, a scandalous cover-up of sexual abuse due to the 2-witness judicial doctrine not too mention the destruction of thousands of familial relationships.
I have no doubt they are "sincere" in what they believe, and in my estimation the nature of these beliefs more than justifies ad hominen attacks on these self-proclaimed "spokesmen for god".....
"Kid-A, try a Sears Kenmore product or Frigidaire."
Thanks Frannie, I'll check them out.
there seem to be quite a number of atheists who comment here.
when they argue how bad religion has been for society they point to actions done in the name of religion that are indeed horrific, such as the inqusitions.
there are also examples of course of non believers who have done great damage to society.
Buñuel (caricature) .
Charles Bradlaugh (1833–1891): A political activist and one of the most famous English atheists of the 19th century. [89]
Curie. Dawkins. Freud.
Watson.
AND THOUSANDS MORE.......
My piece of crap refrigerator from the fine folks at "GE"....4 years old and the bloody thing has started buzzing like a jet-liner taking off so I have to shell out ANOTHER 2 grand for a new fridge!!!!!
several weeks ago the issue of god's 'perfect nature' came up on a thread.
the concept of "perfection" is a persistent in vitually all faith traditions and theological constructs.. jws in particular, have an obsession with the concept of perfection and use it regularly in their propaganda: "live forever in a perfect paradise earth"; "live forever in perfect health"; "humans and animals will live together in perfect harmony", etc etc...... the point was raised about the possibility or impossibility of god being perfect.
if we begin with the basic judaeo-christian tenet that god created the universe from nothingness, then he is the designer and creator of every single entity, sentient or non-sentient, and object within reality.
"The point is that if your attempt is to disprove God's existance with logic there is really no point because God is love and love is not logical."
This is simply a completely circular argument and fails to address any of the questions in the primary post. Regardless of my atheism, the point of the thread is to address the issue as to the possibility of God being "perfect" given his role as "causa sui" of the universe and its contents, including evil.....This really is beyond the question of Gods existence, this is essentially a question directed specifically at believers as to the intrinsic NATURE of Gods essence, if one chooses to believe in said deity.
several weeks ago the issue of god's 'perfect nature' came up on a thread.
the concept of "perfection" is a persistent in vitually all faith traditions and theological constructs.. jws in particular, have an obsession with the concept of perfection and use it regularly in their propaganda: "live forever in a perfect paradise earth"; "live forever in perfect health"; "humans and animals will live together in perfect harmony", etc etc...... the point was raised about the possibility or impossibility of god being perfect.
if we begin with the basic judaeo-christian tenet that god created the universe from nothingness, then he is the designer and creator of every single entity, sentient or non-sentient, and object within reality.
Theology has debated this one throughout history. Perhaps the Gnostic idea of a radical dualism is the most balanced, but it doesn't satisfy our innate desire that the good guy ultimately wins, while acknowledging that we tend to make mistakes. Hence mitigated dualism would perhaps take account of our deficiencies, leading to the acceptance of a correspondingly "bigger and better" deity.
Ross, you theological egg-head! Please expand on these definitions of radical and 'mitigated' dualism....I am completely ignorant.
several weeks ago the issue of god's 'perfect nature' came up on a thread.
the concept of "perfection" is a persistent in vitually all faith traditions and theological constructs.. jws in particular, have an obsession with the concept of perfection and use it regularly in their propaganda: "live forever in a perfect paradise earth"; "live forever in perfect health"; "humans and animals will live together in perfect harmony", etc etc...... the point was raised about the possibility or impossibility of god being perfect.
if we begin with the basic judaeo-christian tenet that god created the universe from nothingness, then he is the designer and creator of every single entity, sentient or non-sentient, and object within reality.
"God of course, being Ulitimate Holiness, did not create evil, because in a sense "evil" actually cannot be created. It is the natural consequence of the removal of that which is created, good. This is where semantics breaks down and philosophical concepts become muddied."
Interesting point Moggy. But please answer, how that which cannot be created, ever "exist"? Clearly, evil exists in the moral universe of the christian, muslim, jew, what have you. In that sense, EVIL is either the "nature" or underlying motivation of an "action", or simply a descriptor for a state of affairs (i.e. the present day world, according to the JWs)...
Yes, semantics do break down but semantics ultimately define ones moral compass particularly when one relies upon a "holy text" to define ones moral continuum. In terms of the removal of good equation, could I not just as easily state that "good" is what is left when "evil" is removed? The point is, why should "goodness" be a pre-condition for the existence of evil, given that God essentially "blames the devil" (his own creation BTW) for the emergence of evil upon the earth?