Posts by cognizant dissident

67

Sheep, other sheep, other other sheep, Three classes of sheep?

by garybuss in

i got this message from a forum member.. i think you may be confusing the wts' understanding of the "sheep" of matthew chapter 25 (who have not yet been separated from the "goats") and the "other sheep" of john chapter 10. the two groups are not (i.e.

no longer) considered synonymous.. .

what am i missing?

cognizant dissident

Baaaa! Who gives a sheep?

36

Is it appropriate for a stranger to comment on a woman's bruises?

by rebel8 in

if you saw a woman in public, and said woman was a complete stranger to you, would you feel it's appropriate to discuss it with her (if you're concerned she is in an abusive relationship)?

if you did, would it be appropriate to do it within earshot of others?

and if she offered you an explanation other than abuse, how would you proceed?

cognizant dissident

How about saying, "You should have seen what the other guy looked like when I got through with him!"

or, "Yes, my husband does beat me regularly, but it's OK, I enjoy it, I'm a masochist!"

Seriously, though, I do think it is a bit rude to walk up to a complete and total stanger and ask them if they were abused. Common sense would tell anybody that there are literally dozens of alternative explanations for bruises, such as car accident, sports accident, toddler accidently belting you in the eye with one of their toys (this happened to me), slip and fall, and medical conditions. So why do they automatically seize on that one possible explanation? I think this is nosiness and a need for drama disguised as concern.

If family, friends, neighbours, or acquaintances ask that is a little different. They know you and their concern is probably legitimate. Doctors, nurses, teachers, and social workers HAVE to ask. It is their job and it is the law. Even they know to take the person aside privately and quietly. They do not demand to know loudly in public. Even when they are off duty they do not accost strangers on the street to ask if they are abused. They know that there are hundreds of possible reasons for bruises other than abuse.

If you are not in the mood to use one of the humourous responses and you don't feel it is anybody's business about your medical condition (as it is not), then you could try just looking the person in the eye and saying, "You are really making quite an assumption, aren't you?". Or, turning it back on them by asking them, "Do YOU have any hidden bruises under your clothing that I can't see? Are YOU being abused? Are you sure? Can I give you the name of an abuse shelter, just in case?" Maybe having the tables turned in this way will make people see how intrusive and obnoxious such questioning is.

Cog

41

My Story

by Missanna in

ok 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

You go Girl!

Yes, you absolutely do have the right to be angry, upset and HAPPY! I am so glad you threw in that last one because while I agree that you do have the right to be angry and upset, and no one should try to minimize what happened to you and invalidate those feelings within you, it would be sad if those were the only feelings you ever felt and were not able to move on and be HAPPY!

We do have to feel all the feelings, honor them, and acknowledge them (and our right to have them) before we can let them go and move on and BE HAPPY! Good for you for figuring this out at such a young age also. Sadly, some people never do and end up stuck in their feelings of being angry and sad. They make being a hurt, victim a self--perpetuating identity for themselves preventing them from truly enjoying life.

Cog

7

Punishment

by Sasha in

i believe i get punished or at least compensated for certain things.

for example, it seems any reward from god to me is followed by a punishment of some sort.

(ie: i finally get the disability i've been fighting for for 4 years and finnaly get it and my 6 year cat died) stuff like that...

cognizant dissident

What popper said.

You got your disability. Great! A beneficial thing happened to you.

Your cat died. I'm sorry! A sad thing happened to the cat and to you because you cared about it.

That is the simple truth of the matter. That is just the way life is. Good things happen and bad things happen and it is random or if not random then at least out of our immediate control.

Where we go astray is when we look for extra meanings. Why did this happen? Then we look for cause and effect between two events that does not exist. Then we start to make up stories. God is blessing me. God is punishing me. We do this because we want to believe that somehow we can control events. We can control outcomes in our lives. If I am good, or do this or do that, then God will reward me with a disability check. If I am bad, or do this wrong, then God will punsih me with the death of my cat. This is how delusion starts. This is how religion is born.

Cog

76

How do you see the world heading if all religion was eliminated?

by Guest with Questions in

many, like dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.

hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years?

with atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?.

cognizant dissident

You repeat a couple of mistakes, which I had hoped I'd cleared up long ago. Perhaps you missed them. Religion HAS diminished WITHOUT violence. I do not want to indoctrinate anyone to not believe in a god. I would be no better than those who teach religion to their children at a young age. And no, I do not HATE religion. I am scared for what danger it brings, and I hate certain effects religion has brought. If people want to have religion and believe what makes them happy, I'm cool with that. Unfortunately, they cannot keep it to themselves.

Good points. In Europe and in North America, religious practice has diminished greatly in the last 100 years. This has been without violence. It has been because of education, the providing of alternative viewpoints, and the freedom of people to choose for themselves. Many of the people have spoken. That is not a war against religion. That is freedom of speech and freedom of choice. That is democracy! Those are things that the major religious traditions do not have a history of supporting and have themselves warred against. That is the "danger" that serotoninwraith speaks of. The danger that any "religion" will again become the dominant power in the world and take away our freedom of choice. We see the human rights abuses in countries where it is rule by "theocracy". (Islamic fundamentalism)

Does this mean we should do away with all religions? How on earth would we accomplish that? By force? That has already been tried in the communist countries where people's freedom to believe and practice their religion was taken away by force. This was merely a turning of the tables, not true change. An exchanging of one prison for another. It led to even greater human rights abuses and brainwashing of children than was true of the religious system it was trying to replace. The world does not need to repeat that experiment again. We know how it turns out.

As I said earlier, religious belief in itself is not harmful. Nor are communist ideals. It is the enforcement of those beliefs on others that is harmful. We do not have to do away with religion. Some of it is beautiful and harmless ritual that comforts people and gives them meaning. Whether it is false comfort or is delusional is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it is harmful or beneficial to others. In many cases, harm can be demonstrated. In those cases, I would like to see this type of harmful religious belief and practice done away with. I think that with continued education, alternative viewpoints/research, and the freedom to express them, religious error will hopefully die a natural death. There is evidence this is beginning to happen in the western world. There is still a long way to go.

However, if religious people would wage a war on education, alternative views, and the freedom to express them, then yes, we absolutely have to fight back against that. Not necessarily with physical force or with the intent of doing away with all religion but with the intent of self defense and self preservation. Right now, in the western world, it is a war of words. Let us hope it remains that way.

Cog

77

You don't have to read this... Feedback Wanted

by Sparkplug in

jw
friends

when i die may i please have chocolate cake?.

chapter 1. my birth.

i have always thought of my life like that.

cognizant dissident

Ok, I only read Chapter 1 because it's long and it's late. I will read rest tomorrow night.

First impression. Great sense of humor! I like the clipped, modern, edgy style of writing. Very dramatic and punchy. (I'm planning to write my own story in same style at some point).

Aside from a few punctuation and grammar errors (minor) I would agree with the earlier poster who said certain parts need more detail and fleshing out for greater coherence. I believe this can be done (polished) without losing your clipped style. I will try to post some specific examples later or in a pm as I know specific as opposed to general criticism is more helpful.

I believe I said the same thing to you when you first came on this board and wrote some of your story then. I see you have improved in the fleshing out and detail quite a bit since that first attempt. Yet you did not sacrifice your unique style.

You definitely have a knack and a style!

Cog

2

QFR: Are Hot Dogs for True Christians?

by 5thGeneration in

jw
friends

a food network show on sausages touched on this so i researched.

wondering if the society will follow up on this obvious evil.

origins .

cognizant dissident

ROFLMAO!

Cog

50

Sunday Notes at the District Convention An emotional plea to young ones

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

continue following me john 21:19. much of the program was similar to the previous two days.

the fact that jesus has appeared in almost every talk title suggests that the society is once again morphing its tactics to persuade more persons that they arent an old testament cult but an alternative christian denomination.. i repeat my previous assertion that there is a manipulative intelligence at work here.

no ordinary person could possible have such foresight and such knowledge of human behavior to think and write the things these watchtower writers do.

cognizant dissident

a Watchtower writer with above average intelligence

I think that's an oxymoron!

Cog

41

How do you think God feels about atheists? Angry? Amused?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

hey guys, .

have you ever considered what god thinks about atheists?

assume for a moment that he/she/it is there: what's the reaction to non-believers?

cognizant dissident

God the Loving Father: "Now, if I warned you atheists once, I've warned you a thousand times. If you don't believe in me I'm going to have to punish you. This hurts me more than it hurts you but I'm going to have to burn you all for eternity in hellfire."

Atheists: "No please daddy. Not that. Anything but that. I don't remember you warning me. I didn't hear you"

God: "Well, I warned your older brother, and I told him to pass it along to you from me. If you didn't listen to him then your still going to have to be punished!"

Atheists: "But daddy! I don't remember my older brother giving me any such message. It's not fair. I didn't know. Please don't burn me daddy!"

God: "Not that brother silly. The one you never met. The one who died thousands of years before you were born. I told him to leave you a note."

Atheist: "Oh that note!. But I couldn't read it. It wasn't in my language. Someone tried to translate it for me but it still didn't make any sense. It was written all in code and symbols. How was I supposed to know what you meant? Please don't burn me daddy!"

God: "Well, if you were really a good boy/girl who had a good heart then you would have figured out what I meant by the note and done what it said. Now prepare to burn for all eternity!"

Atheist: "No, daddy! No!"

Cog: Yep, sure sounds like a loving father to me!

34

OK, so let's test the Creationism advocates out here.............

by 5go in

i 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

We have never seen God but we have seen the effects of God. Yes, you can see it in nature, in people. Because you may not have experienced God personally doesn’t take away from the experiences of others who have.

Yes, we can see nature and people and the nature of people. We see the effects of what happens in nature and the effects of what people do. To attribute those effects to God is an added layer of meaning that has no evidence to corrorborate it. For instance, a tree is not evidence that God exists. It is evidence that the tree exists. The wind is not evidence that God exists. The wind is evidence that the wind exists. No one has "experienced" God with the reality of our "common senses". We cannot see God. We cannot hear God. We cannot smell God. We cannot taste God. We cannot touch God. We have only experienced him in our minds, in a story we were told that we decide to believe because it comforts us to believe it is so. This is not reality. This is delusion. The story comforts us because it allows us to deny the horrible reality that everything dies including us. We cannot accept this reality, so we create a comforting story to deny it.

Before anyone attempts to use the JW reasoning, of "you cannot see the wind, but you still know that it exists", I can touch/feel the wind and see the effects of the wind. I cannot touch/feel God nor see effects of God that cannot be explained by other scientific means.

Does the evolutionary process (or whatever you want to call it) care that we are happy, that we have compassion, love and does the process even care that we survive? Why should it? How did a non feeling process transfer emotion to mankind?

No, the evolutionary process doesn't care that we are happy. It does not have compassion or love. It is random but also adaptive. That is why we see random natural disasters, children born horribly deformed, people getting sick and dying young. The evidence shows there is not a God who cares. We cannot accept the evidence so we make up stories about why God is letting these horrible things happen. Even these stories are not very convincing to a lot of people. God is testing us. Invisible battles in the heavens between Good and Evil. God trying to prove a point to Satan about his right to rule. There is no evidence for any of this. These are meanings added to explain the facts.

We do not as yet know how emotions and feelings evolved. We do have some evidence that they are part of an adaptive survival mechanism. The science of neurobiochemistry is studying these kinds of questions, trying to find the answers. Until the evidence is clear, shall we make up stories that make us feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Cog