Maybe they are narcissists or schizophrenic.
I remember an old lady who had been one for years. No one ever talked to her. Then there was a young man of about 20 who started partaking. But the Elders put it around that he wasn't.
misocup
JoinedPosts by misocup
-
35
What do you think about the anointed?
by MrFreeze indo you think most of those who claim to be anointed are faking it or do you think they actually believe they are anointed?
it's something i've always wondered..
-
-
-
10
JW Callers 21 July 2010
by maputo95 inexpecting the gasman at 10:15 i opened my front door and saw 2 jws there.
i asked:.
"are you jehovah's witnesses and no thank you.".
-
-
misocup
I would love to go all out on the ones that come by my house. I wouldnt argue but I would have some nice material for them. I won't tho because they would write it down and then it would affect my mother.
-
38
Do You Think "Religious" People Are Generally "Nicer" Than Non-Religious Ones?
by minimus inthere are many religious people in this world.
many that i know, are very friendly, accomodating and personable....because they're trying to act "christian".
the same applies to some observant jews that i know.
-
-
misocup
Nice one chickpea !
-
38
Do You Think "Religious" People Are Generally "Nicer" Than Non-Religious Ones?
by minimus inthere are many religious people in this world.
many that i know, are very friendly, accomodating and personable....because they're trying to act "christian".
the same applies to some observant jews that i know.
-
-
misocup
No
For example my neighbor is very obvious about her religiosity but will back stab you in a heartbeat.
I think the more overtly religious they are, the weirder and more devious they are. Take Ted Haggard for example.
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
misocup
Etude, I hate the way you write, it makes me so jealous!
The rise even puzzles Richard Dawkins in light of the fact that people are increasingly acting to the influence of certain “memes” for which there appear to be no evolutionary mechanisms or even a necessity for, in terms of Natural Selection.
I think they over-think the problem. The "memes" they act on are simply a result of the same social pressures and consensus trances humans have always acted on. What has changed dramatically is the context. Modern society, information overload, breakdown of extended family structure, these induce fear which may be leading to the polarization you mentioned. Turbulence in the "waters".
Here's some humor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqC73omSk4o
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
misocup
Also, after years of seeking. I have come to the conclusion that there is no way of knowing about other dimensions at this time. No way of proving God's existence and no way of disproving it.
I still like experimenting, even though I have no beliefs.
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
misocup
Etude
Great post. I agree.
There are those like Joseph Smith who would be institutionalized if he were alive today.
My question is, why are some scientists, atheists, and others, so bound to the notion that it matters.
Let me give you an example. My brother is a biologist who researched for many years. He is what I would call a atheistic dogmatist. To him it matters a lot that others, like my priest uncle, or my psychic aunt, have the beliefs they do.
What I don't understand is why he and 98% of the worlds scientists & others cling (dare I say religiously) to, in the light of their convictions, what can only be called a lifestyle*. Why is it so important to them, that they be perceived as the rational ones, the ones who depend only upon empirical data? Is the social mentality in the scientific community itself a kind of pathology? To date, and to my knowledge, that data tends to be used to prove the non-existence of God, and the debunking of all things mystical or super-terrestrial to the point that those in the scientific field who would like to study those non-traditional areas do not do so for fear of losing credibility and standing in the scientific community.
So, in their world God definitely does not exist, mysticism and non-physical perception are based wholly in a persons brain. Again I ask, from their perspective, why does it matter that people wish to pursue mysticism and super-terrestrial concerns? Are they trying to push "the truth" on us? Or is it mainly to inflate their self identity. To give them a feeling of superiority. To what ends will they go in order to maintain that feeling of superiority?
*I call their way of thought a lifestyle for these reasons:
Their pattern of behavior within the scientific community creates a strictly regulated social organization. A box in which to think and act accordingly.
Their perception of others who do not "act accordingly" as weak minded, or mentally ill.
They actively condemn others for having beliefs other than theirs
Even Hawking rewrites his theories
Even mathematical calculations have to be taken on faith by others who aren't equipped to check the work
I'm not trying to down science. Science is very important in my world. All I'm saying is that scientists are just people with the same foibles as religionists. It's important to think outside the box, I don't see it in the traditional scientific community.
-
135
The generation changed is explained in the June 15'th WT!
by life is to short init is here in writing the new generation change.
on page 5 of the of the wt while talking about the annual meeting report.. "john barr gave the third and final talk.".
"john barr made clear that the gathering wound not continue indefinitely.
-
-
misocup
Bloody hell I wish I'd read what I just wrote before I posted it.
I meant to say:
Or to put it another way
"This generation" now means those born between 1900 and 1930 approximately. There is no longer the (unwritten?) rule about those of "this generation" who survive Armageddon, having to have discerned 1914. They only have to belong to (be contemporaries of) those who did discern 1914.
The GB just slid the 30 year definition of a generation from about 1884 to 1914, to about 1900 to 1930.
Now you just have to belong to the same generation that discerned 1914. Still contemporaries.
It could take them 30 years past 1914, depending on if they want to drop the discerning idea altogether.
-
135
The generation changed is explained in the June 15'th WT!
by life is to short init is here in writing the new generation change.
on page 5 of the of the wt while talking about the annual meeting report.. "john barr gave the third and final talk.".
"john barr made clear that the gathering wound not continue indefinitely.
-
-
-
135
The generation changed is explained in the June 15'th WT!
by life is to short init is here in writing the new generation change.
on page 5 of the of the wt while talking about the annual meeting report.. "john barr gave the third and final talk.".
"john barr made clear that the gathering wound not continue indefinitely.
-
-
misocup
Here's what I think they mean.
The generation that discerned 1914, spanned 30 years. Say at age 14 you could discern, that would make those born after you by 20 years, still belonged to your generation. That would make those born up to 1930 still eligible to be considered "this generation" by the WTS previous "this generation" standard.
This accounts for the distinction of older and younger members of "this generation", and places the youngest members at age 80.
It buys them maybe 10 years?