Posts by WheninDoubt

145

Why attack?

by newqatarjob in

as someone brought up as a jw and been an elder and been disfellowshipped (twice!!!

) i find it difficult to understand why ex jws have to attack the religion, yes religion, not cult or sect.

i am no longer disfellowshipped just do not want to practice anymore.

So the answer to your narcissistic view is, fight evil with evil, this is the compassion, love and trust you’re telling people around the world, by you people hear. This makes you shakers better? Just want to make sure, when the next generation wants to take a bite of Eve’s apple. I’m inclined to respect an atheist or evolutionist at this point. I believe someone is this thread said, where do you get off telling us how to think or live, so my question would be, where you get off telling people on how to think and live their lives with all your anger and bitterness.

Everything is not always black and white. Life is a double edge sword. To rebuttal, refute, questioning? Also, acknowledge the condemnation is unworthy in itself. Remember, Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

While I find that knowledge is a great learning tool, so would hatred be. I find similarities between this site and Muslim extremism, but I do enjoy the lack of religious knowledge spread around here, it’s very entertaining. I believe someone else said, read the bible for yourself to get the truth. How ironic, that same philosophy is taught by the jW’s, so what’s the difference, just asking is.

So before you people get all postal on my post, go ahead make your day, it doesn’t bother me, it’s a never ending story of reality. Hey maybe someday you all can start thinking about blowing up the headquarters or knocking off some JW’s to make you feel better, you know, like the Pharisees did with Jesus. You’re thinking it or have thought about it. You have become advocates of hatred, so why not go all the way, you know get it out of your system. Kumbaya, no, just reality.

There was mention of Albert Einstein. A theoretical physicist when it accommodates your argument or just another cocaine addict when it doesn’t. You know, your flip-flop assertions.

So if you’re going to complain about the WT’s doctrines, then complain about EVERYONES.

The policies on child protection result in ruined lives, harm. Are you a pedophile? Or is this a poorly worded sentence.

The blood policy, unnecessary deaths, harm, People have the right to choose, unless otherwise forced by man’s laws. Aside from that, what business is it of anyone here. If it’s a personal experience with a family member or close friend? Then, that’s up to them. This falls under private debate not public according to the laws of the land.

The shunning policy, family alienation, harm. This is not exclusive to JW’s, so what’s your point. If you experienced it personally, and your family and friends you knew don’t want to have anything to do with you, then they know you better than a bunch of unknowns attempting to spew your personal anger.

The lack of freedom of thought and expression, harm to mental health. When an Author wishes to write a book or a journal towards the JW organization, the WT freely cooperates, good or bad, the WT doesn’t turn around to midline the publisher. So what freedom are you speaking of. Personal freedom to poison the minds of members that actually want to know about God? By your own preconceived notions? JW’s have every right to research what the; calling in the bible is, just as any other religion that teaches religion. The differences are between actual classroom schools or a place of worship. If you left the orgization for whatever reason, then that was you choice, stay gone. Learn your doctrine however it befits you, but don’t put it on the shoulders of others.

The education policy, harm to member’s personal and economic potential. The WT caters to events that are ongoing at the time. Whatever might have happened in the 20’30’40'50’60’70’ 80’90’2000, etc. were specific to those generations. If there was unrest in the colleges in the late 60’s let’s say in America, they would urge their members on the dangers of going into college due to those circumstances. Did that stop JW’s from attending college, to those that could compartmentalize, did? In the 30’s and 40’s it was about war. Maybe to you its okay to kill, how many Christians killed in World War 1 and 2? How many millions have died falsely in the name of God? How many millions have died because of differences in Religion? None that have to do with the WT, but embedded only in your clueless minds. So don’t push your agenda on anyone else, but wait, that’s what this forum is about, I forgot, to distort the truth.

The open use of the inter-net is just a usable vehicle toward that self-expression for public consumption and evaluation, in the same open expressive way the WTS. Uses the inter-net toward its endeavors. So what your saying is, the WT should get their own television program to come out on Sunday mornings or whatever time Evangelist come out on to spread their gospel, would that be more appealing to you? Or should the GB get a private email assigned like the POPE to personally chat with he’s members? Or any number of other religions like the Mormons that spread their gospel through multiple internet sites. So aside from your ignorance, how should the WT spread their gospel, you seem to be okay with everyone else, so let’s fill your personal hate centric demands.

Your spirituality is measured and validated by your devoted service in preaching to the public by proliferating the WTS's own publications. Hmmm!!!! Have you read the Catholic encyclopedia? Or the advent encyclopedia. How about: For those that like to plug a book, Fully Devoted (Pursuing Spiritual Transformation) published in 2009, not published by the WT? How about the thousands of Christian authors that subscribe the gospel through their works. I believe there are thousands of written works by religious people even before the WT. Many by which is used here to measure spirituality, make claim, or dispute it. Remember the Mormons? They made their own book to replace the bible.

Romans 12: 1-11 Context: Love, Zeal, Hope, Hospitality, The question is to who, to someone who wishes to hear or those that choose to remain deaf. By admission, all hear remain deaf, so why would someone waste their time. Go to another church and spew your nonsense, then compare.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Since you introduced the LUCA hypothesis that is cumbersome in its self, then you would have to go beyond your understanding to view all relevancy to it. The miller experiment is one, however just like everything scientific, it can be disproved by your own science, as in this case.

Previously my own, now this is Copy/Past so, not to have your audience think that my hypothesis is one sided as it has become the norm in this thread. What has this to do with the original question posted? Nothing, this goes beyond simple intellect and the posted question.

One textbook, edited by Soper (“Biological Science 1 and 2”; 3rd edition; Cambridge University Press) summarizes the situation well (p. 883):

Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

This conclusion is echoed by those who have spent many years researching in this field of biochemistry. Dr D E Hull wrote,

The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation.

Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.

Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote,

You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Thank You for the video, yes I do understand retroactive phenomena. The answer to the unknown prevails visually, but not bilateral. As you stated from my hypothesis, Creation and Science while Parallel are concluded by different structures. While there is no need to prove life, because it’s there, there is no qualms toward its mechanism. I would suggest you look into the debate between Richard Dawkins and Degrasse Tyson. While entertaining the obvious would be in the differences science holds to life’s questions, when they are systematically in the same class. To a creationist, it’s just one basic principal.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Another point.Evolution as being predisposed to evil is antithetical, then, how do you explain the kindness people show other people without even knowing them? How do you explain, let’s say a dog that protects a child in danger. This is simple logic that dismiss that notion. Therefore, these events are from adapting to the environment there in. and for that, common sense is one value introduced by creation. Once again LUCA would be oblivious to its formation to make that distinction. To a theist, why would God allow suffering, God Didn’t, it was inherited by sin, and animals adapted to that sin. Before man, Animals while not inheriting sin, developed its own to cause its own extension. Something that God doesn’t wish for man that was created in their own image.

The same observation between dinosaurs of being carnivores verses scavengers.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Separatists view, over shadowing Darwinism by a ventured hypothesis of the last Universal common ancestor theory. A 20 century portal inside look of genetics and its origin of one common law. However Darwin was not the first to speculate on this theory. It gained momentum back in the 70’s that became a new approach to DNA. However as mentioned earlier, this hypothesis was challenged back in the 30’s by scientist that took the challenge to form life or make life from all known sequences known for life and failed. The conclusion was that, there had to be a greater being to have formed life. Hence LUCA. The precognizant forming from nothing to something by millions of years of nothing is unproven.

Not only does this not hold value to a creationist, but makes few common sense to science. In order to understand the complexities of genetics, biology to the common person, you would need to view all aspects of that debate. Those that suggest the big bang theory understandably refer to existence. While it merits a separate conclusion the illustration is understandable. There would be no correlation to LUCA if it had no value to its beginning.

Many scientist have refuted this theory of shared one common cell. The inference would then suggest that inherited modern genetics would still be thriving in modern time. Hence we be seeing the same distinction of yesterday, today. The biggest problem with evolution that it hasn’t factually confirmed is life itself. Not the mechanics of it as subscribed by evolution? But by its mere introduction.

That would mean if correct, formations would have been included in other spheres other than just one, earth. Since LUCA is specific to one common law, this entire galaxy and beyond would be thriving with life. LUCA would not have the ability to pick and choose its evolution, it would just be.

While the big bang theory is now being challenged upon its introduction, biology continues to forge ahead with new discoveries, other than life itself. The paradox would show that everything would have bilateral life, such as animals, vegetation, air, water, and therefore would hold the same value to man.

Example would be, kicking a tree, it has feelings and you hurt it. Therefore you should be tried as a criminal. Same Value. Another example is: I see it so therefore it is, a stipulation that it has always been there because you are unaware of it being moved.

For in-depth solution to these theories, you must look at the works of: Craig Venter, Henry Morris, Richard Dawkins, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, and Paul Davis, so forth and so on. I personally enjoyed the great debate of 2011, however, the principle holds, life without creation is meaningless unless otherwise proven. So far zero.

So to a theist? The value, plus origin, equals unknown. However nothing ventured, nothing gained as it were.

68

Help needed: Written material regarding shunning of DF'd and DA'd individuals

by EdenOne in

i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.

not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.

objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.

WheninDoubt

Wow! to compare killing and shunning, that’s a desperate act of a faithless person. Even the 10 commandments attested to that. You are correct, you know nothing about man’s laws and how there implemented, and even less about true religion and how religions need to conform to the laws of the land to be active in that society.

So continue to impress your audience, you have the last word, enjoy your European life. However, I don’t believe your Europe is better than anyone else.

Excommunication is really a kind of banishment, a punishment that's handed out by a church when one of its members breaks some important church rule. The Latin root is excommunicare, meaning "put out of the community," which is just what happens when a person is excommunicated.

ex·com·mu·ni·cat·ed, ex·com·mu·ni·cat·ing, ex·com·mu·ni·cates

1. To deprive of the right of church membership by ecclesiastical authority.

2. To exclude by or as if by decree from membership or participation in a group.

68

Help needed: Written material regarding shunning of DF'd and DA'd individuals

by EdenOne in

i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.

not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.

objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.

WheninDoubt

I forgot to mention, I have read the works of Valeriy A. Alikin, The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries, based upon the Graeco-Roman Society.

It’s interesting that a PH’D would not cover the introduction of Paganism by The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great by merging together to separate rituals to fall upon the same time. Since the Catholics embarked in making St Peter the first Pontificio the obscurities continued not for the benefit of Christianity but to the Roman Catholic Empire.

You see, first off, I don’t know what made you think I am a Witness, since you are speaking of gathering information to sue the WT in European Court, which cannot be singled out, so you would have to sue religion as a whole, which Catholics, hold even their own sit in the united nations, so what makes you think you can. By the way, that’s why I also have my TH’D so as not to confuse factual theology with someone’s ambition to write a story book.

68

Help needed: Written material regarding shunning of DF'd and DA'd individuals

by EdenOne in

i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.

not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.

objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.

WheninDoubt

I thought I was speaking about European law when mentioning United Nations International Law. I believe the entire world has a charter. However since you continue to belittle me with your remarks, then I shall stoop to your level. You argue European laws and stipulate the WT hides behind America’s Laws. Thank you for not being American. While your ignorance continues to evade the U.N. laws I stated earlier? You didn’t bother to mention to your audience about article 2. The biggest influential religion in Europe is the Catholic faith. What would you tell a U.N. tribunal that the Catholic Church is mistaken when it comes to excommunicate its members? So just like you wouldn’t accept American laws, then what makes you think, European laws would be acceptable. Is you race better than the World?

You have a personal problem with the WT. That’s fine, but don’t make it mine. Then you have become they very same thing you so despise. It’s like a homosexual telling me I must be their friend just because the government told me I had to, or suffer the consequences. How are you any different, and since you are Hate centric, why would any JW want to befriend you, to listen to your nonsense, please grow up. That’s what St Paul was referring to, If an unbeliever wishes to accept God through Christ, then welcome that person in, but if that person has known God through Christ and doesn’t repent, then stay away from that unbeliever, why for the same reason your making this argument that has nothing to do with laws, but your personal vendetta’s. That’s what a grad student would argue and most likely win.The result of 15 years of not being challenged in this forum.

68

Help needed: Written material regarding shunning of DF'd and DA'd individuals

by EdenOne in

i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.

not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.

objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.

WheninDoubt

I did not intend to bring up scripture, however, since you claim shunning to be a religious unsubstantiated act, and serves no purpose, then it is necessary to show your readers how incorrect that actually is. 2 Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 5:11, Proverbs 22:24, 1 Corinthians 15:33, James 4:4, James 1:22-25, etc.

Parallel Commentaries

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

6:11-18 it is wrong for believers to join with the wicked and profane. The word unbeliever applies to all destitute of true faith. True pastors will caution their beloved children in the gospel, not to be unequally yoked.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? This, with what is said in the following verse, and in the beginning of the next to that, contain reasons or arguments engaging believers to attend to the exhortation given not to keep company with unbelievers. By "righteousness" is meant righteous persons, who are made the righteousness of God in Christ, to whom Christ is made righteousness, or to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed for justification; and who also have principles of grace and holiness in their hearts, or have the kingdom of God in them, which consists of righteousness, peace.

Now, is this exclusive to JW’s, not in the least. Many other religions follow the examples set forth by scripture. Is it exclusive to Christians? No.

Mentioned in the Quran:

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.

Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..."

Qur'an (3:118) - "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."

68

Help needed: Written material regarding shunning of DF'd and DA'd individuals

by EdenOne in

i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.

not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.

objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.

WheninDoubt

Separation of church and state definition

Resorting to name calling EdenOne? Because of a different point of view, how beneath you. I see you didn’t bother to mention Article 2

America:

The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion.

Note: The relationship between church and state has been extremely controversial since the first settlers arrived in America to escape religious persecution in Europe, and many cases involving the issue have reached the Supreme Court.

Separation of church and state

The separation of church and state is implied in the 1st amendment with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that the state cannot force children to go to a public school or have a state based church. This is to protect everyone's religious views to the extent it does not harm another.

Recent events have indicated the existence and influence of a historical revisionism movement designed to marginalize and deny the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. Through the works of evangelists such as David Barton and his "Wall builders" organization, books, movies, and seminars are used to present a highly selective and biased account of the founding period of this country. The purpose is to mislead the public into believing that government and religion were intended from the beginning to be mixed, and that an evil cabal of politicians and judges have somehow cheated us out of a "Christian nation" to which we must return. Designed to be impressive-sounding to a public otherwise unfamiliar with early American history, this misleading information is used as "sound-bites" in publicity campaigns and public arguments in favor of increased religious intrusion into government affairs.

The truth, however uncomfortable it may be to those whose religious faith needs government support, is different. It is true that the debate over the relationship between state and church was heated, and this was a major issue which motivated many to oppose the ratification of our country's Constitution. History, however, clearly records the prevailing philosophy, and it was determined that our government must not only be separate and isolated from religious faith and practice, but that this arrangement was a necessary component of true religious freedom.

This is the view of credible historians, academics, legal commentators, judges, and the Founding Fathers themselves. However important, and to what degree these people held their own personal religious beliefs, they agree that such practices are a private affair, and that one cannot be free to hold and practice their own religion, unless they are free from having someone else's beliefs imposed upon them. This is the essence of the separation of church and state: freedom *from* government-imposed religion. It is this principle, and not the doctrines of any particular faith, that form the basis for the peace that America has enjoyed from the spiritual tyrannies and violence that plague other parts of the world to this day.

When the general welfare or common good of the society is jeopardized by a practice, as legislators claimed about polygamy when writing this law, then that practice is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause. This general principle was refined in a 1940 case involving religious evangelism by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian denomination known for its door-to-door proselytization. The town of New Haven, Connecticut had passed a law requiring that all religious groups register with the town before soliciting residents at their homes. Jesse Cantwell and his son were arrested

For disturbing the peace by soliciting without a permit, and they challenged the law. The

Supreme Court ruled that the registration requirements were unconstitutional because they unfairly disadvantaged religious believers, and because they required government officials to determine which messages were religious and which were not. This case,

Cantwell v. Connecticut

,

The first time the Court used the First and Fourteenth Amendments together to invalidate a state law; thanks to the Court’s reliance on precedent, the federal Free Exercise Clause would henceforth apply to all state laws. The Supreme Court set an important new accommodationist standard for evaluating free exercise cases in 1963, when it upheld the right of Adeil Sherbet, a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, to refuse to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The state of South Carolina offered unemployment benefits only to persons who actively seek employment, and since she would not work on Saturdays the state did not consider her to be actively looking for work. In ruling for Ms. Sherbet, the Supreme Court announced a new test it would apply to future such cases: if a law creates a “substantial burden” upon a person’s religious practice, it must be justified by a “compelling state interest” in applying the law with equal force. Absent such interest, the state must accommodate the religious practice by exempting it from the law in question.

International:

Reference: Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements

This week and next we have an opportunity to see how Pope Francis’ representatives around the world behave. As the world’s leaders gather in New York at the United Nations General Assembly, Francis’ diplomats will be among them. This is vitally important because the Vatican, as the Holy See, has a special status at the UN, above that of any other religion. This status and its implications for public policy are addressed in a new three-minute movie that shows exactly what happens when the lines between religion and public policy are blurred.