Bigger than a breadbox but smaller than a refrigerator.
Cadellin
JoinedPosts by Cadellin
-
69
How big is a demon?
by Terry inthings which exist are real enough.
we can measure them.
they are just this big and no bigger or smaller.. they are here and not there.. imaginary things have the luxury of being any size.
-
-
-
3
"The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science"--and why JWs resist the truth about the "Truth"
by Cadellin inthis recent mother jones article is pretty illuminating as to how defense mechanisms kick in when cherished beliefs are threatened by new information.
all the responses discussed--discrediting the source, denying the validity of the evidence, etc.--are, no surprise, exactly the strategy employed in wt publications discussing biblical criticism, evolution and other contradictions to the wt worldview.
what i found interesting was that such emotionally-driven responses feel like rational responses to the individual because the emotion to preserve belief systems kicks in before the analytic response.
-
-
Cadellin
This recent Mother Jones article is pretty illuminating as to how defense mechanisms kick in when cherished beliefs are threatened by new information. All the responses discussed--discrediting the source, denying the validity of the evidence, etc.--are, no surprise, exactly the strategy employed in WT publications discussing Biblical criticism, evolution and other contradictions to the WT worldview. What I found interesting was that such emotionally-driven responses feel like rational responses to the individual because the emotion to preserve belief systems kicks in before the analytic response. I'd like to show this to my husband, but I know he'll discredit it and point out all the ways it doesn't apply, thereby unwittingly providing support for the point being made. Except he won't see it that way.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
-
20
"When Was the Bible Written?" June 1, 2011 Public Edition--Oh, Wow!
by Cadellin ini say, "oh, wow!
" because this article is a showcase for all of the ways that the writing dept.
has lost any shred of authoritative ethos or credibility.
-
-
Cadellin
Leo's observation is a great indicator of Watchtower epistemology: Although some truth can be discovered through observation and investigation, it will always be subordinate to truth revealed through divine writ. If that which is discovered through natural phenomenon seems to contradict the Bible, then it is the conclusion of natural phenomenon that is wrong. Because the Bible is considered the a priori Inspired Word of God, it exists outside of the realm of meaningful analytic inquiry. That is to say, it can be investigated only to the extent that the results of that investigation reinforce pre-existing belief.
When any investigation reveals information that might challenge that belief, then one of the following happens: (1) the source is discredited and the information rejected. For example, in the article I mention, Biblical scholars are characterized as unreliable and unable to agree on anything; (2) WT eisegesis is altered to allow for that information (such as in the recent implicit shift to creative days that are unspecified "eons" in length) while still maintaining the infallable inspiration of the Bible or (3) the information is ignored, chalked up to "wait on Jehovah" or something similar, or explained through convoluted and baseless hypotheses, like the recent "overlapping generations" nonsense.
-
20
"When Was the Bible Written?" June 1, 2011 Public Edition--Oh, Wow!
by Cadellin ini say, "oh, wow!
" because this article is a showcase for all of the ways that the writing dept.
has lost any shred of authoritative ethos or credibility.
-
-
Cadellin
I say, "Oh, Wow!" because this article is a showcase for all of the ways that the Writing Dept. has lost any shred of authoritative ethos or credibility. I won't go into all the ways in this post, but want to share one gem in particular.
"Criticism of the Bible has taken many forms since then [referring to previous para]. For example, a recently published dictionary of the Old Testament contained detailed articles on form criticism, historical criticism, literary/narrative criticism, history of Pentateuchal criticism, source criticism, and tradio-historical criticism."
This is under the subheading "What the Critics Say." Now, it's clear that the writer has no clue what "criticism" means in the scholarly sense. He's trading on the popular/common definition of criticism as "faultfinding; censuring; disapproval," the intent being to show the great extent to which secular sources will go to discredit the Bible. (This is more of the WT's strategy to control information by trying to discredit anything written by secular outsiders.) But "criticism" as it's used in the context of a reference work, particularly when coupled with a modifier like "historical" or "source" means something quite different: investigation and analysis. While there may an evaluative or judgmental aspect to scholarly criticism, the point is not mere faultfinding or disapproval, as the WT's use implies.
There's a parallel in the distinction between the common useage of the word "theory" and the scientific use. "Theory" in common parlance usually means a best guess, while "theory" used in a scientific context means a systematic statement of principles of observed phenomena, which has been verified to a high enough degree to make it stronger than a mere hypothesis. In some cases, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it's all but proven (though nothing is technically proven in science). Same with the theory of evolution. But many WT speakers (and maybe this has happened in the publications, too, though I can't put my hand on a source) use the two terms interchangeably. I've heard speakers from the platform say about evolution that "it's just a theory but they teach it like a fact." Of course, it's "just a theory." It's also a fact.
But I'm not trying to talk about evolution here, rather a similar rhetorical move located in the June 1 WT. There are two possibilities, both of which are disturbing. Either the writer honestly didn't know the difference between the two definitions of "criticism," or he knew and deliberately chose to manipulate his use of the word. In the first case, if a writer has such a limited knowledge, he shouldn't be writing about this subject in the first place. (Duh!) In the second case--well, it's just plain deceptive. Neither possibility enhances the WT's already shoddy reputation when it comes to intellectual honesty or credibility.
-
26
Society doesn't follow it's own advice: Aug 15, 2011 WT "Internet Eve"
by truthseeker ini thought this extract from the august 15 wt (study edition) was very telling.... .
today, anyone with an internet.
connection can become a desktop professor,.
-
-
Cadellin
Well, they keep upping the paranoia, don't they? Of course, the WT despises the Internet: They even admit why--no rules or restrictions on what can be said and by whom AND it's freely available to anybody anywhere. The most fantastic and powerful aspect of the Web is the freedom of information, which is critically dangerous to high control groups.
So they demonize it even further by using that rather clever illustration to make the internet synonymous with Satan. That's exactly the message being sent. If you don't know every last detail about what you read on the internet, the implication is, then it's a lie from Satan. Never mind the fact that just because something can't be verified, doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. But once a JW reads something (critical of the WT) on the internet, because that medium is now linked with Satan, that information is tainted. If corroborating evidence is encountered from another source, perhaps reading the same thing in the news, let's say, he or she will still be disinclined to believe it because of its original association. In a way, the WT is "vaccinating" JWs against anything they read on the internet.
I would say that this extremely paranoid article is more evidence that the Boys in Brooklyn are getting more and more nervous about the impact of cyberspace, probably thanks to sites like JWN. Yay JWN!!
Oh, yes, and I want to add that's it's an absolute HOOT that by their standards listed in the article, EVERYTHING written by the WT would automatically be worthy of suspect and hence rejected!!! They are the WORST about citing credible sources or using up-to-date information or identifying who wrote anything or having a HUGE agenda and bias in their writing.
-
20
David Splane information anyone?
by VM44 inwe need more information as to what sort of person gb member david splane is.
.
there is very little about him that is known..
-
-
Cadellin
I had him as a sub CO many years ago and can confirm that he is, indeed, a gifted orator. Charisma up the ying yang--well, let me clarify--that is, when he's publicly speaking. In person, I have no idea. But on the platform, pontificating into a mike? He could draw tears from Navy Seal.
-
81
2011-2012 DC Brochure(s) "Listen to God" PDF
by yknot inanonymous brother does it again!
(huge round of applause!!!
(regular) http://www.sendspace.com/file/nzjme3.
-
-
Cadellin
OMG, you guys make me laugh!! NoRoom--Dr. Zaius--that's hilarious!
My Book of Bible Stories looks like War and Peace compared to this brochure's simplified version.
Unshackled hit the nail on the head. And yes, the simplified version is just downright embarassing. If someone is unable to read English well enough to read the regular version of the new broch, which itself is about a Grade 2 reading level, then they need to be reading in their first tongue.
The problem is--well, one of them--that the WT is stuck on the "easier the better" because, as so many have noted already, anyone with even a moderately good education is starting to see right through the nonsense. The fact is, many important things connected to the Bible--whether you accept it as the Word of God or not--ARENT simple and can't be made simple, or at least, not like the WT is attempting to do. Therefore, what they've ended up with, in this silly brochure, is a complete fiction unhitched from anything remotely resembling truth or reality (however you want to define that).
And yes, the good wifey in her apron wtih the casserole on the table just in time for the hurly burly meat-eatin husband caught my attention too. Also, did you note how every single spirit creature is a white-haired, bearded, semi-ageless Caucasian male with albatross wings? They really need to give better thought to the currency of their images.
Also, Paradise looks like Rivendell. Someone in the art dept.'s been watching LOTR...
-
-
-
Cadellin
Welcome, burnedout. I'm the wife of an elder as well as the daughter of one, so I can totally relate to the "other side" of your story. My husband is wonderful and I love him dearly but he refuses to even consider any evidence of the duplicity and dishonesty of the WT. I see him barreling through some evenings in a flurry to get his parts ready or take care of congregational things, sometimes very stressed out. He keeps himself so buried in it that he can't see the forest for the trees, if you see what I mean.
As I've said before, it continues to surprise me how it is the men who wake up first, in so many (though not all) cases, but perhaps being on the inside as an elder has something to do with it...
-
50
Resigned
by Franklin Massey ini finally resigned as an elder.
my conscience wouldn't allow me to continue.
i've battled for years trying to reconcile the fallacies of the wt society with my own personal beliefs.
-
-
Cadellin
You are truly an "honest-hearted" person. It's ironic that we claim to be searching for honest-hearted people and yet those who really are intellectually honest end up seeing the discrepancies and unScriptural manipulation techniques and leave. Those with courage, that is.
Congratulations for being so brave.
-
110
2011 District a$$embly - We cant wait. The board is abuzz WHAT NOOLITE?
by hamsterbait inthe first summer a$$embly finishes this weekend.. tell tell!.
who are the toes.
the verrucas and fungus?.
-
-
Cadellin
Let me make sure I've got this right: The DC flyer shows Daniel's image with all of the kingdoms identified down to the AA world power, then there's an arrow pointing at the toes with a floating question mark. This set-up would prime a reader/viewer to expect some kind of useful or illuminatory information regarding the toes, paralleling the already disclosed info re the rest of the image.
The rhetorical context--that is, a talk at the annual district convention, where traditionally new and "exciting" information is announced, coupled with the thematic implications of the passing of the previous worldly kingdoms and the imminence of God's Kingdom--would lead one to believe that some announcement of significance with respect to where we are in the stream of time (to use a hackneyed JW expression) would be forthcoming.
All that--and the announcement is basically that there's nothing to announce??? The toes have no significance??? THAT'S what that flyer is all about????