Bleed the locusts! LOL. Crumpet is funny! Also little kids are smarter than the average witness!
Cog
cognizant dissident
JoinedPosts by cognizant dissident
-
54
Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?
by neverendingjourney ini always wondered about this when i was still a jw.
i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.
i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.
-
-
-
40
OK, so let's test the science advocates out here.............
by NotaNess ini'll start it off, then someone else give them a different challenge if you can think of any.. please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
give two separate findings by scientists, and it can't include any comments like "so we believe", "so we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the wts has those copyrighted.. try and give un-doctored photographic proof, where possible, etc.
by the way the hominid skulls and the like will not be accepted, transition has never been proven, i don't think, just that they are different, and scientists "believe", they are pre-homo-sapiens.. i'm not saying you won't have examples, we just want you to walk the talk.
-
-
cognizant dissident
Virus and bacteria (don't remember the plural) were the first thing that came to my mind to support evolution, also. However, the question stated that the proof must show the evolution from one species to another, so I didn't think this would qualify. It does still prove that evolution happens every second though.
Cog
-
54
Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?
by neverendingjourney ini always wondered about this when i was still a jw.
i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.
i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.
-
-
cognizant dissident
Also great points Axeman. Banning leaches. Absurd! Do no witnesses stop to ask themselves if Jehovah didn't want leaches to eat blood then why would he have made them? Or when witnesses refuse to buy cat or dog food with blood by products in it do they ask themselves how wild cats and dogs bleed their kill before they eat? It is just insanity! I equate banning blood transfusions with "drinking the kool-aid" now. So JW's are proving themselves a cult by agreeing in advance and putting it in writing that they will drink the kool-aid if asked.
Cog
-
41
My Story
by Missanna inok for some reason i can't sleep tonight and feel like writing so i'm gonna tell my story of how i got to this point.
.
ahhhhm.
-
-
cognizant dissident
Wow! ((((Missanna)))
You have been through a lot for the tender age of 19. You might as well have been writing all about me. Elder/pioneer parents. Violence and sexual abuse (stepfather, not brother). Feeling bad and wrong and worthless all the time. Cutting. Having pre-marital sex. Feeling condemned for it. Trying to redeem myself through pioneering and being super-good. I think you are my long lost inner child! I am 43 now and absolutely jealous of you! Why would I say a crazy thing like that after hearing your horror story? It's not because you are 19 and gorgeous (if that is your real age and picture). It is because you are 19 and have already figured out what it took me 25 fricken more years than you to figure out. And you have already found the courage to post your "truth" for the world to see on the internet. Kudos to you. You do not have to spend the next 25 years of your life feeling like shit and trying to make yourself feel better by being "better". I am in awe of you.
One thing, I am curious about. How does your JW husband feel about all your past abuse and the way you now feel about the "truth"? Will he be supportive of you? Because you are absolutely, unequivocally going to need emotional support. The feelings and programming you were raised with will probably raise their ugly head more than a few times in the future. Religious, emotional, and sexual abuse and programming are not undone in a day. I married a nice JW man too. He was absolutely unequipped and unable to give me the emotional support I needed to deal with this stuff. I would suggest finding a very gentle, very supportive counselor trained in sexual abuse, child abuse and religious abuse. There are good ones out there and that was indispensable for me in my healing and moving on. Don't make the same mistake as me and wait 25 more years to get some professional support/help.
Anyways WELCOME! and please stick around. If you need to talk ever, about absolutely anything feel free to pm me.
Cog
-
54
Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?
by neverendingjourney ini always wondered about this when i was still a jw.
i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.
i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.
-
-
cognizant dissident
Leoleia:
I actually believe that it is totally irrelevant how much blood is left in the meat. 1% or .3%. The society has said in the past that Christians would not accept and contaminate their bodies with one drop of transfused blood. Amount is not the argument. They have never answered the question as to why it is permissable to eat drops of blood left in the meat from properly bled animals and yet is not permissable to inject one drop of blood into our veins by way of trasfusion to save a life. I am referring to pre 2001 blood doctrines.
When the 2001 blood articles came out outlining permissable minor fractions and forbidden major components the whole thing just became ludicrous to me. (A fraction and a component are synomous yet the society tries to differentiate the usage. This is theocratic wordplay at it's finest and would be laughable if people were not DYING over this nonsensical drivel!) Arguing the percentage of blood left in the meat falls into the same category. It is a distinction without a difference.
Cog
-
34
OK, so let's test the Creationism advocates out here.............
by 5go ini responce to this post .
i'll start it off, then someone else give them a different challenge if you can think of any.. please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
give two separate findings by scientists, and it can't include any comments like "so we believe", "so we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the wts has those copyrighted.. try and give un-doctored photographic proof, where possible, etc.
-
-
cognizant dissident
I agree with you 5go.
I also agree that the abundance of empirical evidence is with the evolutionists. And I have read very, very little of it. The beauty of the sceintific method is that it allows for old theories to be discarded when new evidence proves them wrong. However, the purity of this process can still be circumvented somewhat by human arrogance and ego. I see no evidence that the "first cause" of evolutionary processes is "God". But I can also accept that at this point in scientific theory "first cause" is unprovable by the strictest sense of this term "proof" that you have laid out. That does not mean there are not many plausible theories out there and evidence to support them. Hopefully, in time, as yet unknown mysteries will continue to be revealed through the method of scientific inquiry. Until then, I think we need more awe and less arrogance, on both sides.
Cog
-
34
OK, so let's test the Creationism advocates out here.............
by 5go ini responce to this post .
i'll start it off, then someone else give them a different challenge if you can think of any.. please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
give two separate findings by scientists, and it can't include any comments like "so we believe", "so we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the wts has those copyrighted.. try and give un-doctored photographic proof, where possible, etc.
-
-
cognizant dissident
I suspect your thread will die a quick death with no takers. Not because it is not a great question. But because the "proof" that you request does not exist, on either side. We have two opposing theories, evidence on both sides, empirical and testimonial, the validity of which is highly and hotly debated. But what neither side has is "absolute, unequivocal, proof". As it stands, right now, nobody "knows" for sure. The atheists "think" they "know" and the creationists "believe" they "know". This is actually the same phenomenon, they just don't "know" it yet. I think maybe JNAT gets it. And James Thomas.
Cog (An atheist who is hedging my bets and being nice to the creationists, on the infinitisemal chance I'm wrong. After all, it has happened before, I used to be a JW! Just in case, I'm hoping JNAT will put in a good word for me on the other side )
-
147
Atheists, Why the Anger?
by XJW4EVR inok, so you deny the existence of a god, or you lack belief in a god.
my question why do you get so angry over a mythical being?
no one gets as upset over the tooth fairy, santa claus or the easter bunny, as i have seen some of the atheists on this board get over the slightest mention of god.
-
-
cognizant dissident
JNAT You absolutely nailed the real issue on this one. There is anger and disrespect on both sides of this debate. I have seen intelligent atheists on this board rudely insult and disrespect believers and I've have seen intelligent creationists rudely insult and disrespect atheists. Having been on both sides of this fence, (as a former JW I believed in creation and now I am an atheist) I can ask myself honestly, at what point in this evolution of mine, did I gain the right to be insulting and disrespectful to my former comrades in belief. At what point did I now become deserving of their insults, rudeness and disrespect? The answer is NEVER.
There is NEVER an excuse to be rude, insulting and disrespectful to our fellow human beings. The belief that our "rightness" or some else's "wrongness" justifies anything we may say or do to them is what allows relgious fanatics to blow each other up and commit genocide. It is what allows atheistic political fanatics to commit genocide.
One poster brought the morality of homosexuality into the mix. OK, so that poster finds homosexuality immoral because the Bible says so. Fair enough. Now I ask that person, having stated your belief freely, can you now accept that you have absolutely no right to be rude, disrespectful, or hurtful in any way to any homosexual person you may meet? (This is a rhetorical question, for example, I do not expect response) This is the type of "higher" morality that all believers and atheists can aspire to. It costs us nothing (except perhaps our egos and self-righteousness). Yet we have everything to gain from it. When we have accomplished that level of respect for one another, right or wrong, then we will truly have accomplished a "miracle".
That being said, if I see an angry mob coming after me with pitchforks, with murder in their eyes and muttering "heretic" under their breath, I'm fighting back!
Cog
-
54
Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?
by neverendingjourney ini always wondered about this when i was still a jw.
i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.
i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.
-
-
cognizant dissident
When I was a child I asked my mom about the bloody meat/steak also. She gave me the "it's not blood, it's just meat juice", story. I honestly believed that and never questioned it my entire life until I went to university and took first year human anatomy and biology for nursing. During our section on blood and blood vessels, someone asked the teacher (who had a doctorate in biology) why the the cut meats still bleeds days and weeks after the animal has been butchered and bled. Apparently, bleeding the animal does not allow all the blood in the tiniest capillaries to escape. Blood travels through capillaries one cell at a time, that is how tiny the capillaries are. After the meat has sat for a while or is cut again, the blood still trapped in the capilliaries can leach out of the cut or disintegrating/decomposing capillaries.
Granted, it is not just blood. The blood is also mixed with other interstitial and extrastitial fluid leaking out of the muscle and organ tissue, and myoglobin as Leolaia pointed out. But there are definitely red blood cells in that fluid giving it the reddish color. A simple mircroscope and slide would reveal the truth of this to any witness. Red blood cells are very easily indentified even to a non-expert.
I was so shocked by this "revelation" that all JW's had been eating blood all along. I honestly never knew this. I immediately realized that even if God did give the Israelites commands to bleed all their meat, it was only meant to be a symbol of the sacredness of the life they were taking. It was never meant to be a literal command that one must not injest one drop of blood. This was reinforced when we talked about how blood cells were formed in the bone marrow. I can remember many a witness greedily sucking every drop of marrow/blood out of the chicken bones they were eating. Yet, children with cancer had to die rather than receive bone marrow transplants. The "truth" just started to fall apart for me after that. Their doctrines fell one after the other, just like dominoes falling, click, click, click.
Cog
-
70
No outlet for unattractive men in this society...
by Gregor inthey work hard and take care of their mothers.
they are loving uncles and kind hearted.
but they are 5'3', 290 lbs., bald at 35 and their personal interests are grounded in 3 stooges movies and star trek reruns.
-
-
cognizant dissident
I know a man who has burns and some minor brain damage and has women friends galore. He invites them out to coffee, takes them places, he is fun to be around. He has women fighting over who is going to marry him. (None, because he can't commit).
There are lots of overweight, unattractive women out there (by media standards). Lots of them are lonely too. Why aren't they out there hooking up with those lonely guys? Or why aren't those lonely men asking them out? Could it be that some of them don't want a woman who is as atttractive as they are, but they want a model/porn queen type that they have been fantasizing about?
I agree with the other poster who said there are lots of not so attractive guys with attractive women out there and vice versa. The missing factor is personality. If you are not physically blessed, are you developing your personality? your social skills? your humanitarian skills? Volunteering was a great suggestion to meet other motivated people. Or have a hobby or a sport that you are passionate about and don't just stay home and keep it to yourself - get out there and share it with others.
Prostitution is a five minute fix to a lifelong problem. Not to mention dangerous and possibly exploitive to both sides. It only makes you lonelier in the long run because you have made only a temporary physical connection and not a emotional/spiritual connection to another person. Plus, the prostitute probably didn't want to have sex, he/she wanted the money. It is purely sexual release and could be had much cheaper and more safely through masturbation.
Cog