Posts by HB

51

Help needed: transgender people and other unclear topics

by TeaBiscuit in

first of all, i am not quite sure whether this is the right place to ask my questions.

if this is not really appropriate, please tell me in advance, but i really did not know who to turn to, so i thought why not ask the internet... now, i know many of you are apostates and i'm not really looking for "leave it all behind you" answers, but really for experiences, thoughts and ideas... as well as maybe some verses if you can think of any.. anyway, first things first.

since this is very anonymous and i'd like to keep it that way, i will not give you my name, but still, i think some background info might be helpful.

HB

Hi TeaBiscuit,

From your posts, you seem to be a nice person, so I'm guessing your name refers to Nice biscuits which are designed to be dunked in tea?!

On the theme of Rebel8's link above, if you believe that God (or any other deity) designed or created animals, then there are several species whose biology and behaviour patterns could indicate that He is fine with transgender.

Or if you believe that God started life and left it to evolve, then we can at least say that He hasn't so far chosen to make these species extinct, which he could do if he didn't approve of sex changes.

The Clownfish (remember 'Finding Nemo') is an example..

It is a hermaphrodite which means that individuals are capable of changing their gender at some point in their life.

This does not imply that they are 'transgender' in terms of their psychology or that they suffer from the feeling of being born in the wrong body. They change merely for species survival reasons.

All babies are born male. They live in groups made up of all males and one female, and there is a hierarchy in each group with the female fish generally being the largest and most dominant fish in the group.

The 'alpha male' will be the only one to breed with the female and both take turns in guarding the eggs. If the female dies, this dominate male begins to gain weight and will change sex to become the female of the group.

This is just one example of many similar occurrences in nature, and as I said, although its not a parallel to human transgender issues, for Christians it could be used to show that the concept of sex change at least in the animal kingdom is presumably not abhorrent to God.

But for the Watchtower, it seems that anything and everything which is even remotely or distantly connected to 'sex' is automatically abhorrent and sinful.

33

78 to go and hopefully something good comes of it. Please do your part and sign up. Thanks

by Tenacious in

only 78 signatures are needed in order to send the request to the irs that they revoke or at the very least investigate the borg.

come'on guys, support it.. click here to support and sign up!.

HB

I signed, but not sure if it counts that I am in the UK?

People are asked to give their country as part of the signing process.

59

Sweet 16 - Happy Birthday to Us !

by Simon in

it's the forum's 16th birthday today!.

amazing that not only have we lasted so long but we're still thriving and growing.. thanks to all the people and often colorful characters who've contributed to the site over the years.

some are still here with us, some have since moved on, but all have touched each others lives in some way along our different journeys.. .

HB

I wonder how many lives JWN has (literally) saved?

26

Am l the only one.?The older l become the more hostile l become towards god.

by atomant in

they say you mellow out with age.maybe so but not in my case.l feel its an insult and degrading to us humans to have to live the way we do if there is a god.deep down l guess l do believe theres a god but lm having great difficulty trying to understand why things are the way they are.l dont need a bible bashing from anyone l just feel frustrated and helpless.l just battle on like everyone else but l get the feeling theres a whole lot more to our existence.

HB

YOUTH:

Lack of experience, idealism, heart rules head, lack of knowledge, gullibility, rose tinted glasses, seeking a mind blowing 'spiritual' experience and hoping this will teach us the ultimate 'truth' about life and its purpose. A hope for the future that if we work hard enough and follow a particular lifestyle, the answers to the meaning of life will eventually be revealed. The desire to be 'special' with esoteric knowledge not understood by many others, which we can then teach others to make ourselves feel important and superior. The feeling that we have the power to single-handedly change the world if we are determined enough or have sufficient faith.

AGE:

Rationality, scepticism about the supernatural due to lack of evidence, disbelief in any gods, especially caring and loving ones, frustration at not having found finding answers to the suffering in the world, a realisation of our own insignificance and acceptance of our ineffectiveness and impotence to make significant changes without the help of others.

(On second thoughts, sorry, perhaps 'impotence' was not a good choice of words in relation to age!)

But also a sense of contentment in realising there is no benefit in wishful thinking and relief and a sense of peace at coming to terms with reality.

Atomant, I dont know how old you are, but I very much understand the feelings you expressed in your opening post.

I have found that as a Humanist, my aim to do whatever little good I can wherever and whenever I can, gives satisfaction and meaning to my brief existence.

Although I abhor the amount of suffering in the world, my acceptance that there is no god or other supernatural power who is going to step in and change everything to take away the pain, injustice and inequalities in the world, leads to a deep sense of personal responsibility to do my bit.

And a belief in the collective responsibility of all of us humans to work together to make the necessary changes, not wait for an unknown invisible power to finally wave a magic wand.

Change for the better is frustratingly slow but it's speeding up in recent times. It's not a coincidence that the more secular our society has become, the more science and technology and society have had the freedom to make advances and improvements that have alleviated suffering.

There's still a long way to go, of course, but I fear the frustration and helplessness you expressed in your opening post will likely lead to cynicism and depression unless you can find a way to appreciate the positive progress we are making.

It's all too easy to focus on the headlines of bad news like terrorism and crime, but when you step back and compare life now to any time in history, it is clear that overall we are becoming more humane as a society as we lose belief in gods and take on belief in our own power to effect change for the good, in the long term.

21

Caitlyn Jenner has cognitive Dissonance

by sherrie11 in

i have just finished watching the latest episode of i am cait!

lol yes i watch it!!!

they were discussing politics.

HB

To be honest I think most of us experience brief moments of personal cognitive dissonance in every day life at one time or another whether or not we have been in a cult.

In childhood, it's a daily occurrence often encoraged by parents, eg, small children believe in Father Christmas, magic powers, guardian angels and fairy tales even though logic is clearly against it.

Even when parents insist something is not true, and the child understands logically it's not feasible, the emotion can remain very real and be more powerful than the facts, eg, monsters under the bed, wolves in the forest who could swallow your grandma whole, or an invisible spirit who will punish you if you are badly behaved.

My own childhood cognitive dissonance was not harmful overall..... contrary to all logic, I wanted to believe my teddy bears and dolls came alive and had a party when I was sleeping; and when I fell over, I wanted to believe my Mum's kiss really was magic and miraculously took away the pain of a scraped knee.

As an adult, I am by nature sceptical and try to be rational in all circumstances, but I sometimes catch myself even now.

Take the case of a family member whom you love and always assumed was kind and good and shared your own high principles and moral code. Then you catch them deliberately lying and cheating or being cruel. Cognitive dissonance can click in as you really don't want to believe your relative is flawed, and it allows you to make excuses for them and continue to feel and act as if they are innocent.

It's sadly too easy to use CD to hide facts and evidence from your conscious mind, especially when you have a lot of past history tied up with your belief and especially hard when admitting you were wrong will badly dent your pride and self esteem.

Thats why I deeply admire all you ex JWs who have destroyed the power of cognitive dissonance in your lives and had the humility to face the fact you were wrong, and admit it to others. Not easy but shows a great strength of character.

12

Why Were / Are the Best Rock Bands British?

by berrygerry in

so, roger daltrey and pete townshend were on jimmy fallon tonight as the who.. without disrespect to others, i would put the top 5 rock bands, not necessarily in order, as:.

led zeppelin.

pink floyd.

HB

As a rock music fan, and a proud Brit, in fairness I would like to give a thumbs up to a few US bands who made it to the "All time Greats" list as well: Bruce Springsteen, Aerosmith, Nirvana, R.E.M., Jimi Hendrix (although his drummer was English and his bassist was Irish!), ZZ Top, and a few others.

On a tangent, my friend who is an ex JW (and former poster on this site), is in a very good rock band which plays original music as well as covers for events, festivals, parties and pubs and clubs.

A couple of years ago, he was engaging in a polite exchange of emails about evolution and other doctrines with a local JW Elder (in his mid fifties) who had previously called at his door a couple of times and been invited in. (Luckily the Elder did not appear to notice the Sparlock mug on display!)

Seeing all the music equipment and guitars in the house, the conversation turned to music, which the Elder professed an interest in. My friend invited him to a forthcoming gig at a local social club.

To everyone's utter astonishment, the Elder and his wife turned up. I and my friends sat with them and were very welcoming, and, although the music was too loud to talk, we were able to chat between sets. I pretended I didn't know they were JWs. It was obviously not the kind of music they had been expecting. the wife looked like she had a swallowed a lemon and both were very uncomfortable in this worldly setting.

When I invited them to come and dance, it was as if Satan himself had appeared. Because we were all so friendly to them, they were in an awkward position, and they stayed out of politeness till half way through the second set, but I think the Killers "When you were Young" was the final straw and they made excuses and left. It was a bizarre experience.

Holy Hell

by HB in

apologies if this has been mentioned on here before but i didn’t find it by doing a search.

if you are interested in the inner workings of cults, you might want to watch out for a new documentary film called ‘holy hell’ which is due to be released in may 2016 and was premiered at the sundance film festival in january.

it was described by critics as a powerful and ground breaking film and the audiences at sundance loved it and gave it a standing ovation at almost every screening.

HB

Apologies if this has been mentioned on here before but I didn’t find it by doing a search.

If you are interested in the inner workings of cults, you might want to watch out for a new documentary film called ‘Holy Hell’ which is due to be released in May 2016 and was premiered at the Sundance Film festival in January. It was described by critics as a powerful and ground breaking film and the audiences at Sundance loved it and gave it a standing ovation at almost every screening.

It documents a small cult named Buddhafield that began in California in the 1980s. Former members describe the initial blissed-out euphoria which slowly deteriorated into abuse and exploitation as the charismatic but delusional and narcissistic cult leader progressed from offering spiritual guidance to exercising total mind control over his adoring followers.

The film director Will Allen was a former member of the cult and a personal assistant to the leader, named Michael. (Michael later renamed himself Andreas). Will Allen had the informal role of house videographer and documented the lives of Michael and other members over a period of 22 years, so there is an unprecedented amount of footage.

The group encompassed all the classic US west coast cult hokum, including detachment from family, faith healing, trance like states, new age mantras, and a 'divine’ leader, who, inevitably, claimed to have a direct line to God.

Eventually in 2007, members of the cult began to wake up to the real truth about their guru. He was a former gay-porn star, failed actor and also a registered hypnotherapist, but they were not the main issues.

Many disturbing secrets were revealed, such as the fact that whilst he demanded that his followers should be sexually abstinent, the leader regularly coerced young men, both straight and gay, to have sex with him. Female members were forced to have abortions if they became pregnant. Some members were made to have plastic surgery, so the cult leader could see the effect before he had the procedure done himself - paid for of course by the members. There were cases of people being forbidden from returning home to visit dying parents and many other abuses of power.

The leader’s efforts to defend himself against accusations were ineffective, but despite that he is apparently still running a smaller version of the renamed cult in Oahu.

If you are interested, google ‘Holy Hell’ to find various websites with more information and videos.

Buddha Field is on the surface more extreme than the JWs who surreptitiously encourage members to worship the Watchtower Organisation and the Governing Body, but it's clear that JWs are a cult when you are aware that they have fundamental control techniques in common with these more wacky groups.

It's just such a pity that if JWs see this film, many will condemn the Buddhafield members as brainwashed, not realising they are themselves also mind controlled.

53

QUICK! Questions to ask MARK SANDERSON!!!!!!!

by TeenageInsider in

quickly!!.

mark sanderson at a regional assembly.. i will find him and ask him questings.. please quickly leave questions you want me to ask.. i will record and post updates!!!!.

hurry..

HB

Not wishing to be a kill-joy especially when the information you are giving is very interesting, but I'm just a little concerned for you, Teenage Insider.

Bearing in mind that you said you are "viewed very highly by the Borg", if you post details here of any conversation with a Governing Body member, won't you be potentially compromising your anonymity and endangering your good reputation in the organisation?

If there are any 'spies' reading on this forum, I presume it would be fairly easy for Mark Sanderson's minders to identify who he talked to about specific issues in the Green room at a Region Assembly. And if you are indeed a teenager, that would narrow it down even further.

I've never even been in a Kingdom Hall let alone attended an Assembly, so as an outsider I might be completely wrong, and I would defer to your knowledge as an insider and others more au fait with Watchtower ways.

But it did occur to me that you could find yourself in hot water if you are not circumspect, so please do take care!

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

HB

When I posted the BBC article in the OP, I didn't stop to consider that it might spark a debate, I merely thought it might be of mild interest to anyone who was interesdted in the origin of words.

However having just read through the thread, I'm very glad it has developed into a debate.

Those who claim evolution is "just a theory" (using that word in the colloquial, every day sense of 'an unproven assumption') are doing a great job of helping to demonstrate to anyone who has an open mind but is on the fence about creation, that evolution is indeed a fact.

Fisherman:

Following on from posts above, I would sincerely be interested if you could answer the following question:

WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS A FACT?

Can you specify precisely what practical 'proofs' or visible evidence that you would require to be demonstated to you that would mean you had no option but to change your mind?

I am referring to realistic evidence; if you could live forever, you would, over the span of millions of years, be able to see in person evolution occurring in man and primates, but that's not a feasible way for the process to be demostrated here and now.

Or is there in fact nothing that any mere mortal could tell or show you that would convince you?

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

HB

The titles of Cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "Evolution is a fact...".

Richard Dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

The following may be of interest, it's from the BBC website - part of a regular series of articles called 'The vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-35499049

The Vocabularist: When is a theory 'just a theory'?

A Lancashire headmistress attracted fury with a tweet in which she said "evolution is not a fact; that's why it's called a theory".

In ancient Greece, theoroi meant something like "observers".

They were envoys sent by city-states to consult oracles, to give offerings at famous shrines or attend festivals.

Theoria was a word for their duties. It came to mean any act of observing, and was used by Greek philosophers, generally, in the sense of "contemplation".

Contemplating something does not challenge it - it strives to understand it, whether it is Pythagoras's theorem (theorema in Greek was an object of theoria) or some perceived divine truth.

Still today, when we take a driving theory test we are not studying a school of thought about driving which may be discredited, but general considerations on which good practice is based.

But sometimes theory means an opinion, a suggestion which may be disproved in practice - "only a theory".

This week a former director of public prosecutions criticised police who "believed a theory at the start of the case… We don't want the police deciding what the truth is before the investigation starts".

This definition of theory as something subject to disproof or challenge is deeply and honourably rooted in scientific tradition - in the practice of testing explanations by discovery or experiment.

"Theory and experiment", the 18th Century chemist Joseph Priestley wrote, "go hand in hand".

And Darwin in his Origin of Species wrote that new discoveries could "annihilate my theory".

Scientists are proud of the principle that their beliefs can be tested and challenged, not accepted as a matter of faith - that in the words of Darwin's champion TH Huxley, a beautiful hypothesis can be slain by an "ugly fact".

But when opponents interpret this to mean evolution - or at least Darwin's doctrine of natural selection - is just one competing opinion, his supporters deny this.

Some theories, scientific bodies say, are "the foundations of human understanding of nature" and "based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".

But Richard Dawkins points out that scientists themselves use the word with different meanings.

"Trying to clear up this terminological point about the meaning of 'theory' is a losing battle," he says.

He says we should call evolution a "fact" because, "the evidence for evolution is so strong that to withhold assent would be perverse".