Posts by Inquisitor

5

Helping the friends in time of need

by architect in

.

is it proper to annonce in the congregation by the use of flyers to raise money thru a garage sale to help those in need in the congregation?

Inquisitor

The serious answer is NO.

I wonder if one might get away with it at the book study though. Are you planning on helping someone financially, architect? Good on you if you are.

INQ

86

Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin in

the university of virginia has a unit in the department of psychiatirc medicine that investigates these claims.

here is a link to this unit:http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/.

and here is a partial clip:.

Inquisitor

I'm making this a seperate topic so we won't waste time with it here.

Dear Frankie, How does debating the credibility of your 2 year-old's testimony to his "past life" a waste of time in a thread that is entitled, "Children who claim to remember past life"? Would you rather hear from people who have kids that told them unusual things? Sorry I have no kids. And I kept most of my thoughts to myself when I was one. Thanks for speaking up for common sense, Robdar. Appreciate it. INQ

65

Cano Is The Tip Of the Iceberg

by metatron in

is the watchtower organization filled with child molesters?

maybe not - but the cano incident should make us think about an allied problem,.

namely, general corruption and rot.. many years ago, it was not unknown to find strange photos and other materials in a bethel brother's room, after he died unexpectedly.. that doesn't prove that there is a massive problem with child molestation.

Inquisitor

Ah, ic <retracts claws>

INQ

86

Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin in

the university of virginia has a unit in the department of psychiatirc medicine that investigates these claims.

here is a link to this unit:http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/.

and here is a partial clip:.

Inquisitor

Another thing to keep in mind is that the researchers may have spoken in proper grammer in relating what the 2 yr old was saying in baby talk. We do it all the time. But reguardless I don't think it is a point that troubles me at all.

The linguistic study of 2 year-olds needn't be found in research papers, Frankie. These are so fundamental that they're in TEXTBOOKS now. And no, a 2 year-old sounds like a babe because he or she IS A BABE.

I have yet to see a BABE PRETEND TO BE A BABE. The 2 year old you mentioned is a fake. Unless, you have "accidentally" forgotten to mention that he is a 5 year old. INQ

86

Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin in

the university of virginia has a unit in the department of psychiatirc medicine that investigates these claims.

here is a link to this unit:http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/.

and here is a partial clip:.

Inquisitor

most people know when it come to a 2 or 3 yr old there are the average and the above average intelligents.

The speech of young kids reflect their developmental progress. Pick up a textbook on Psychological Development or Psychology of Language and you will have all the proof you need that kids at 2 years of age CANNOT speak as well as your 2 year old even if they wanted to. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE.

And even if it were unbeleivable would be an indication of something paranormal.

So now there is something paranormal about the two year old?! That's strange. The 2-year-old's Dad didn't seem perturbed by this paranormal ability.

Look I can help you with your case here. Why don't you just go back to that orginal narrative and change it to FIVE year old. Then you don't need to worry about this linguistic scandal any further.

But your questioning the ability of a 2 yr old is in effect saying the whole research was a scam.

Then it probably is. I don't care. I'm only interested in the fact that a 2 year-old cannot talk like that. End of story. If that pokes holes in the bigger picture, that's the author/researcher's problem not mine. If I am not allowed to question this, how can you deny saying "it is wrong to be sceptical"?

that the researchers were putting words in the mouth of this child

No , it doesn't have to be the researchers. It could be the narrator of the story. It could be the kid's parents. But that does still make the research invalid. But you're tired of hearing this aren't you?

INQ

86

Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin in

the university of virginia has a unit in the department of psychiatirc medicine that investigates these claims.

here is a link to this unit:http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/.

and here is a partial clip:.

Inquisitor

Frankie

Again you fail to click on the link to read what I had earlier said. Is the hyperlink not showing on your computer? That's ok. I'll do it the traditional way.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/115727/2.ashx Kindly read the last post in that page.

I DID NOT say that 2 year olds cannot speak clearly. I said they cannot speak as eloquently as you have claimed.

A 2 year-old would say things like "Water", "Dog"... then later "Daddy pants", "Bad boy".

He wouldn't string sentences as masterfully as you have claimed, spouting "‘The wagon hit me. I was dead and I was angry with the man who drove the wagon." So your narrative is false.

Speaking clearly at 2 years of age doesn't make one a prodigy (although that's probably what your folks told you).

But speaking long sentences with conjunctions in BOTH active and passive voices does make your 2 year old child a GENIUS.

INQ

86

Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin in

the university of virginia has a unit in the department of psychiatirc medicine that investigates these claims.

here is a link to this unit:http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/.

and here is a partial clip:.

Inquisitor

So you see why I didn't spend time refuting your reasoning because if you read carefully what i posted, you raised objection that showed you automatically assumed deciet of some sort by a credited study that is being conducted by a university. How can you refute someone that don't know what the story is? WHy refute it, if the person automatically disreguards what the research is bringing to light?

That is very convenient for you, Frankie. I HAVE READ CAREFULLY what you posted. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be so determined to object. I have raised this before and I will raise this again. There are credited studies to show that greenhouse gases are not seriously damaging the atmosphere or that homosexuality is acquired behaviour etc. There is a credited study out there to appeal to the right kinda public. If all these studies are to be taken seriously and without question, what do you do when there are studies that contradict one another? Who is right? Do we go by the Size of the professor's title or the Size of the campus of which he represents? The research must prove itself credible to its critics. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Ask any researcher, Frankie. Basic scientific method. <rolls eyes> Let me also add, that I would be very happy to accept that Dr. Stevenson's research has discovered a most unusual phenomenon for I am a curious person. But to tell people that they are wrong for being skeptical towards the findings is unreasonable. Even more far-fetch is your claim that the findings VALIDATES REINCARNATION. INQ

86

Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin in

the university of virginia has a unit in the department of psychiatirc medicine that investigates these claims.

here is a link to this unit:http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/.

and here is a partial clip:.

Inquisitor

Frankie

What am I supposed to do with such a challege? So you think the kid spoke eloquintly beyound his years, what is it in what you said that needs to be challenged refuted or that takes away from the experienced?

You have obviously not bothered to read the earlier post I refer to, and that is why you did not realize that i was being a tad sarcastic. A 2 year-old boy you said had had a previous-life experience could NEVER have said what he did. 2-year olds do not have such mastery of their language at that age. He would not be able to string together sentences like "The wagon hit me. I was dead and I was angry with the man who drove the wagon." Click on the above hyperlink to read why. Conclusion: the 2 year old's testimony is fake.

You whine that

The objectioins raised so far have failed to show that they have even read the material posted

and yet, by your own posts you show that you're ignorant of what others have posted on your thread. You hear objections but not constructive criticisms.

INQ

65

Cano Is The Tip Of the Iceberg

by metatron in

is the watchtower organization filled with child molesters?

maybe not - but the cano incident should make us think about an allied problem,.

namely, general corruption and rot.. many years ago, it was not unknown to find strange photos and other materials in a bethel brother's room, after he died unexpectedly.. that doesn't prove that there is a massive problem with child molestation.

Inquisitor

How many adulterers?
How many homosexuals?
How many scam artists?

metatron

What do HOMOSEXUALS have to do with criminals and addicts?

INQ

86

Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin in

the university of virginia has a unit in the department of psychiatirc medicine that investigates these claims.

here is a link to this unit:http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/.

and here is a partial clip:.

Inquisitor

Perhaps there are kids who can remember events that they have never experienced. That would be a truly amazing discovery. And I am all for discovering the answers to such abilities.

However, it is unwise to:

1) Immediately hail these accounts as evidence for reincarnation. All you have are kids who can tell you experiences that aren't theirs. What possible hypotheses can one make? Mind-reading? Telepathy? Why must it necessarily be "proof of reincarnation"?

2) Attack people who challenge the research. Scientific claims are always challenged by the skeptics. A good, solid theory MUST be able to survive the critrics. The opposite is true with religious claims. People are expected to have faith that religious phenomena occurred. So which approach would you prefer us to take with this research into past life? Scientific skepticism or blind faith?

Regards,

INQ