is there any protesting done outside the assemblies?
or is it only done at conventions?
i believe some of my relatives have an assembly coming up soon.
I find the idea of advertising websites like this one or Freeminds interesting, because JW's can secretly check them out on their own.
Back when I was going, you had to call a phone # - and that could have been somewhat intimidating (unless you were strongly determined to get out already).
my wife got me started watching this show last year.
we've downloaded the previous seasons on netflix and have found it to be really well done.
the story line, scenery,costumes,old cars and compelling characters have us hooked.
Spoiler alert - don't read my post if you don't want to know what happened at the end of episode 3, which was just aired for the first time this Sunday here in the USA.
.
.
.
.
.
I sheltered myself from all spoilers, so I was shocked when they killed off Matthew Crawley in the last episode. I could see something bad was coming when hearing Robert's voice-over declare how lucky he was at how well everything was going, and then a relaxed Matthew driving the open road...
I am reading that this ending cause a huge stir in Britain when it was broadcast on Christmas Day, spoiling the holiday for quite a number of Brits. I also read there is a big division - many of the show's fans were completely turned off by the ending, but others who can't wait for season 4.
I'm in the category of those who can't wait for January when season 4 will air here in the States. Now that Matthew nudged the estate into the 20th century and made it profitable, how will it go on without him? What power struggle might come to run things - because we know Robert really isn't cut out to run the operations himself. I think it'll make for good drama, even though I will miss Matthew's character.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Shelby - just one more response in clarification:
I'll jump to the middle of your post because I found this example interesting.
There are many, many reasons that some would have the tendency to deny another's factual experience as being true. If I went fishing alone and landed a 80 lb. marlin... all by my lonesome... but a wave came and washed that sucker back into the sea... sure, I can't PROVE that I landed it.
For this discussion my inclination is to steer away from personal experiences and keep it to universally known ideas and to whether they are factual or not. Otherwise we get into religious / faith experiences that are not subject to the scientific method. So those kind of things may be something, may be real to you or others who truly believe they have experienced them. See, these are items of faith, and while they are in the realm of your own reality - and honest people will listen to them and evaluate them, they are not universal.
"Faith, though, is NOT blind. True, it does not require PHYSICAL sight... but it IS based on evidence. Evidence, however, is NOT always seen with the physical eyes."
If evidence is strong enough to be universally accepted, tested and recreated, then it can come into the realm of fact. Otherwise the evidence is personal and can serve to strengthen one's faith.
"The earth's circumference, while ALWAYS round, wasn't always a FACT... as some here wish that word to be understood. But... wasn't it? Always true... and thus a FACT... although not yet verified?"
However you and I live have only lived in a world where we knew the world to be spherical. The earth was spherical even before it was verified. However since nobody could verify it, how could we anyone at that point state "it's a FACT"? Maybe I'd be more clear if I use an example from the world we know.
Back in the 1970's and 1980's we heard our music on record players and boomboxes. Who knew it was possible to miniaturize music players so that it would fit in the palm of one's hand? Such a thing could have been theorized by the brightest minds in 1975, but it wasn't yet verified. And then technology kept miniaturizing the circuit boards, and things kept getting smaller until they produced MP3 players and I-pods that can hold thousands of songs. So the fact that such a thing "could" happen became verified.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Gromit:
there are facts that you may know that I do not know. There may be facts that you know, but the basis of your knowing isn't acceptable to me. What is a fact to you, may not be to me.That is the point I was trying to make.
See, this gets to the core of this thread. I don't have any "facts" to me that aren't a fact to you. I bet you cannot name a fact that you have that I don't agree on. If something you say is only a personal belief, impression, experience, etc., then it isn't a fact - as much as you believe it. If something you say is a provable, universal fact, I will agree (once I understand it).
For example...let's say you know a universal fact (I'm not talking about personal experience here or facts of law) that somehow I haven't learned yet - maybe you have memorized the value of pi to 60 digits, then it's still a fact even if I don't know it. It isn't "your" fact or "mine", it's a universal, provable fact that only one of us happens to know and the other hasn't learned yet.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Shelby,
I see you introduced the word "truth" here as a synonym for facts. Personally I wish we could just stick to the word "facts" as it is the title of this thread. "Truth" just sounds like a collection of facts that align to a philosophy or religion. I know I'm imposing a meaning onto it, but I'm a bit sensitive to the religious nature of the word 'truth' and I'm sure you understand why.
"REALITY is dead center: includes science AND faith. One who only possesses an undertanding of one or the other, though, actually does himself/herself a great disservice. Cheats oneself, really... of reality."
Reality to me does not include faith. I don't mean to demean you or anyone who is a person of faith. However faith can take on so many shades and colors, depending on culture and even family background. Faith is belief in the unseen, and I aver that it is definitely outside the realm of provable fact. Facts are either provable or falsifiable. Nobody living on earth can definitely prove there is or isn't a deity, and if there is nobody can prove which one is the right one. It all gets hazy and murky when you mix in faith with facts.
To you, your faith may be real. To others, their different faith may be real. I don't deny that people think things are real.
"what you claim here as to religion... I see you as being as dogmatic about THEM as many proponents of religion are about SCIENCE."
Yes I'm bringing a point of view when I say religions tend to believe they have the facts and are not interested in searching for knowledge. The major religions have always said you must believe their way or else you are doomed for eternity. Since you are not a major defender of religion, I didn't think you would have any problem with my saying that.
Throughout the centuries it has been the world of science rather than theologists who have worked hard to explore and develop new facts about the universe. It seems to me that any search for information by religions has been chiefly to confirm their existing belief system. I hope I'm not "dogmatic" in this assessment and am open to learn if religions have brought forth amazing new discoveries.
I perceive that you are pointing to a grouping of all "truth" with an overlap between religion and science. I don't see it like that. I see religion and science as totally separate disciplines, with their own goals and possible benefits. Science is there to document what is provable, to the extent possible, about the known world. Religion is there to document what is believable, to the leaders and/or adherents of a given faith system, about the unknown world. In my view a thick, dark line exists between the two disciplines (religion and science).
"TRUE SCIENCE does... using... OTHER ways to verify a thing. Including ways beyond the currently known/accepted."
Science constantly works to observe and measure the known universe, and this process has only accelerated in the past century due to amazing advances in technology. True science means that which is verifiable and holds up to repeated observation and/or experimentation. Fraudulent ideas like "cold fusion" have been exposed as hollow and have been sent to the wayside. The scientific process is self-correcting as it is exposed to constant peer reviews and re-evaluation.
If we go beyond the scientific methods currently known and accepted, we are entering into a realm of faith which cannot be proven or falsified using "true" scientific methods. Those who look to fit ideas of faith into science are trying to place a square hole into a round peg, Dear Shelby.
And if such a one says, "Well, okay, yes, there might be other ways, but you're not a scientist and so YOUR way is unacceptable," I would say, "Then stop asking non-scientists to verify that which is not scientific (i.e., relating to the physical world)... in a scientific way."
If someone brings "other ways" that don't accord with the scientific method, whatever they're doing isn't scientific. I seriously doubt anyone is asking believers to verify items of faith in a scientific way. I certainly don't ask that. I believe items of faith are outside the realm of the "facts" discussion, because they cannot be proved or disproved scientifically.
because my brother-in-law did the sunday talk in the congregation, we were invited to come to the congregation.. it was 3 months ago we showed our faces there.. when we entered the hall some witnesses said hello.
most of them did a far away look away.. i walked to the counter for taking the 2013 calender, the daily text book and much magazines the local clown elder (he was dressed in purple), talked to me with a loud voice "welcome!
nice to see you again.
I trust you didn't let them make an "appointment" for "encouragement".
jehovah's witness virus: deletes all but 144000 select files.
i'm a jehovah's bystander.
we's like the witnesses, only we don't wanna get involved.
What's the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses in convention cities and a canoe?
A canoe might tip.
i wonder whether any of you took note of the article in the 12/15 study edition wt "the simplified watchtower .. why introduced" i couldn't believe they actually had the temerity to put such tripe into print and onto the record.. i was flat-out astonished with its put-down of vocabulary building and self-improvement:.
one egregious example: " the time spent looking up words and explaining expressions (ostensibly from the "smart people's" watchtower) is now spent gaining an understanding of the scriptures and how they fit into the lesson.".
one jw cited in the article actually blames her college education for causing her to fall into the bad habit of "speaking and thinking a way that was more complicated than necessary.
One JW cited in the article actually blames her college education for causing her to fall into the bad habit of "speaking and thinking a way that was more complicated than necessary."
If this college-educated JW cannot explain concepts in a straightforward way, that is a function of her own confusion. College education should lay the way towards clarity in thinking, and towards being able to explain even complicated concepts in understandable ways.
However I'm quite sure the JW cited in the article was just trying to think of something quotable that the organization could use to promote their anti-higher education agenda, since she's apparently now a Watchtower drone.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Agnophos:
imagine if someone insisted that my experience wasn't scientifically possible, therefore I was wrong. I would rightly be indignant, wouldn't I? It would be hard to get along with someone like that, because I would feel like they were calling me an idiot for saying I experienced something that was impossible.
If someone insists your experience wasn't scientifically possible, if they are unreasonable and don't at least try to understand your point of view, then THEY are the one acting idiotic. What you proposed as your experience wasn't a fact and can never be one, but it is your experience and as such deserves to be evaluated by reasonable people.
What may be a fact in your case is that a power line puts out measurable radiation either at a constant rate or sporadically. Also, studies could be made to determine the effects on nearby human, animal and plant life.
Even if they would verbally call call you "idiot" that wouldn't be a fact - just their interpretation, maybe theirs alone. No need to worry about that. None of us can possibly make a positive impression on everyone we know. If they dismiss you in such terms without even giving you a hearing, THEY are the idiot. But it's all a matter of degree. People can respectfully disagree too. However on the Internet - since we don't have face-to-face communication, it is impossible to pick up on the non-verbal cues, so it's much easier for misunderstanding to arise here on the Internet - even when people are agreeing!
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Gromit:
Isn't another person's fact simply something you dont know? :)
Although you posted with a smile (maybe meaning your post is slightly tongue-in-cheek), there really isn't such a thing as "another person's fact". Facts don't belong to individuals but to everyone who needs access to facts. People may certainly know more facts than I do or you do, but still - facts are universal. Anything else is an impression, experience, belief, understanding or interpretation that belongs to one or more individuals. They can be valid, but if they can't be proved or disproved then they don't belong in the discussion of "fact".
