Shawn10538

Joined

• started 70 topics
• posted 1,259 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Shawn10538

• 
  45

  Questiions that JW's can not answer

  by TooBad TooSad in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i was an elder for 10 years.

  there were some questions that i was asked by the flock which.

  i could not answer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  Electricity only from coal and oil? Where have you been?
• 
  22

  "How Cults Work" -- A Comparison with Jehovah's Witnesses.

  by B_Deserter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  these are selected comments regarding the article posted here: http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult.htm.

  there is no meaningful difference between a cult and a religion in terms of faith, morality or spirituality.

  the primary differences are that a "cult" operates outside of mainstream society, often calls on its followers to make an absolute commitment to the group and typically has a single leader, whereas a "religion" usually operates within mainstream culture, requires varying levels of commitment from its members and typically has a leadership hierarchy that, in practice, can serve as a series of checks and balances.. jws definitely operate outside of mainstream society.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I disagree that a cult needs ONE charismatic leader. JWs do NOT have ONE charismatic leader. Plenty of Witnesses don't even now who the president is. Yet, JWs are a cult. The definition needs to be broadened to say a cult can have a charismatic or authoritarian ENTITY. That ENTITY coud be a person, or it could be an ideal (Concept perhaps?) or a BODY or Council (GB n FDS.) To say that a cult requires one PERSON as its leader is to miss the point of what a cult is. A cult is a cult for many different reasons, and a leader can be many different kinds of things, including A BOOK. Having one PERSON as a leader is not necessarily an element of cults. Many organizations heve one charismatic leader and are not a cult. Many cults have a governing council or a book (the Koran? the Bible?) or a concept (1914, the FDS) as their leader, yet they are still a cult because of how the rank and file interact with that leader or council.
• 
  22

  "How Cults Work" -- A Comparison with Jehovah's Witnesses.

  by B_Deserter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  these are selected comments regarding the article posted here: http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult.htm.

  there is no meaningful difference between a cult and a religion in terms of faith, morality or spirituality.

  the primary differences are that a "cult" operates outside of mainstream society, often calls on its followers to make an absolute commitment to the group and typically has a single leader, whereas a "religion" usually operates within mainstream culture, requires varying levels of commitment from its members and typically has a leadership hierarchy that, in practice, can serve as a series of checks and balances.. jws definitely operate outside of mainstream society.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I disagree that a cult needs ONE charismatic leader. JWs do NOT have ONE charismatic leader. Plenty of Witnesses don't even now who the president is. Yet, JWs are a cult. The definition needs to be broadened to say a cult can have a charismatic or authoritarian ENTITY. That ENTITY coud be a person, or it could be an ideal (Concept perhaps?) or a BODY or Council (GB n FDS.) To say that a cult requires one PERSON as its leader is to miss the point of what a cult is. A cult is a cult for many different reasons, and a leader can be many different kinds of things, including A BOOK. Having one PERSON as a leader is not necessarily an element of cults. Many organizations heve one charismatic leader and are not a cult. Many cults have a governing council or a book (the Koran? the Bible?) or a concept (1914, the FDS) as their leader, yet they are still a cult because of how the rank and file interact with that leader or council.
• 
  32

  Should We Really Try to Change Others?

  by journey-on in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  why do atheists try to change believers?

  why do believers try to convert atheists?

  why do we feel compelled to evangelize, proselyltize, convert, and change others politically, religiously, culturally, etc.?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  All arguments are variations on "I am right, you are wrong." That is why I like to remind myself sometimes that it is possible that EVERYBODY has it wrong, including of course, myself. It's possible that life is just a mytery we'll never understand, and there is no hope of finding out the truth in the future. This may not be a warm fuzzy belief, but it is just as likely to be true as any other theory. That is why I say to Creationists that just because evolution is totally wrong, it doesn't mean that creation is right. It may be that both of them are wrong.
• 
  10

  Ben Stein Movie Re: Intelligent Design & Scientists Coming February 2008

  by Justitia Themis in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  .

  http://www.expelledthemovie.com/movie_overview.php.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I think Ben Stein is making a straw man argument if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that no one is PERSECUTING Intelligent Design people. The Scientific default stance is skepticism, so they are just as skeptical about evolution as they are about creationism... IDEALLY. And I'm not saying scientists are particularly moral people but they usually are very beholden to the scientific method - it is their Bible. If there are professors who are not being given tenure, then it might be because they can't present empirical evidence of their position. I'n not saying there isn't such evidence, I don't know. But if a professor came up to me and made the statement, "I believe in creation because the Bible says so, or because I have faith that it is so." I would drop his class and file a complaint against him or her. Not because I disagree with his conclusions, but because he shows no comprehension of the scientific method as well as publishing an idea with sketchy journalistic ethics.
  
  The makers of the film are not being very discreet in showing that they are biased from the get go. I think he's creating a controversy where there is none. The scientific position waits for empirical evidence to present itself before they adopt a belief... IDEALLY. Due to the RULES on causation, we must be able to show a link between the evidence and our conclusions, the cause and effect.
  
  The religious stance is opposite of that, they start believing first, then they search for scientific evidence to support them AFTER they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I've never heard of a person coming to know Christ because they researched science and the science pointed to Jesus. But, as far as the religious way, it seems pointless to look for scientific support of their claims. You have already accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior, so you won't be looking at the lack of evidence of his existence and the mythological argument that since the story of Jesus was told for thousands of years before the first century making the Jesus story a myth because it is just a bastardization of the original myth. They will only look for evidence that supports their faith, and they close their minds to anything critical of that. This is contrary to the scientific method and journalistically unsound.
  
  Still, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I definitely will see it. It is a very important topic in the culture wars.
• 
  10

  Ben Stein Movie Re: Intelligent Design & Scientists Coming February 2008

  by Justitia Themis in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  .

  http://www.expelledthemovie.com/movie_overview.php.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I think he is making a straw man argument if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that no one is PERSECUTING Intelligent Design people. The Scientific default stance is skepticism, so they are just as skeptical about evolution as they are about creationism... IDEALLY. And I'm not saying scientists are particularly moral people but they usually are very beholden to the scientific method - it is their Bible. If there are professors who are not being given tenure, then it might be because they can't present empirical evidence of their position. I'n not saying there isn't such evidence, I don't know. But if a professor came up to me and made the statement, "I believe in creation because the Bible says so, or because I have faith that it is so." I would drop his class and file a complaint against him or her. Not because I disagree with his conclusions, but because he shows no comprehension of the scientific method as well as publishing an idea with sketchy journalistic ethics.
  
  The makers of the film are not being very discreet in showing that they are biased from the get go. I think he's creating a controversy where there is none. The scientific position waits for empirical evidence to present itself before they adopt a belief... IDEALLY. Due to the RULES on causation, we must be able to show a link between the evidence and our conclusions, the cause and effect.
  
  The religious stance is opposite of that, they start believing first, then they search for scientific evidence to support them AFTER they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I've never heard of a person coming to know Christ because they researched science and the science pointed to Jesus. But, as far as the religious way, it seems pointless to look for scientific support of their claims. You have already accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior, so you won't be looking at the lack of evidence of his existence and the mythological argument that since the story of Jesus was told for thousands of years before the first century making the Jesus story a myth because it is just a bastardization of the original myth. They will only look for evidence that supports their faith, and they close their minds to anything critical of that. This is contrary to the scientific method and journalistically unsound.
  
  Still, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I definitely will see it. It is a very important topic in the culture wars.
• 
  31

  Well it's official: free2think is no longer part of the congregation

  by free2think in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as some of you may know i am fading.

  well my dad, an elder, has now said that i am no longer part of the congregation, woohoo.

  i am not da'd or df'd or reproved so my question is what does that mean?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  Congratulations!!!
• 
  5

  Super Pioneer

  by Shawn10538 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am sure someone else has posted this, but it was just so hilarious i had to post it again.

  .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tukktr0wjeo&mode=related&search=

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I am sure someone else has posted this, but it was just so hilarious I had to post it again.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUKKtR0WjEo&mode=related&search=
• 
  5

  Preemployment Drug Screenings

  by gr8typist in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not been associated with the jws for many, many years.

  today i had someone ask me why jws don't submit to preemployment or employment drug screening.

  i had never heard this one and suspect it's some random person out there just trying to get out of taking a drug test.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I've never heard of that, but it gives me a great idea for getting out of drug screens!
• 
  95

  What was your first car?

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  mine was an old fiat 127, i bought it 1983 and it was at least fifteen years old then!

  the seats were vinyl and there were no rear seatbelts so i could send my girlfriend and her sister flying with each bend in the road!

  it wouldn't go above 55mph and was rattling like rollercoaster when it finally got there.. the rear window fell out and it finally croaked in puff of blue/black smoke.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  1973 Mercury Capri, v6.