Posts by Introspection

10

A Spiritual Experience

by Undecided in

jw
friends

as i was sitting in church listening to the preacher trying to get all to accept christ as our savior, amen, praise the lord and all that christain talk, i didn't feel any spiritual response at all.. this is what gives me a feeling of closeness with god, nature or whatever.. i was visiting my daughter who lives out in the country, about a mile back in the woods.

i was sitting on the porch and there was a nice cool breeze blowing and the trees were moving with the breeze.

my wife was in the yard with her granddaughter, she was walking with her, holding her hand(she is 14 months old)and they were looking in the patches of clover for a four leaf clover.

Introspection

Hi Ken,

That was a nice experience. I agree that religion does nothing for you, even in the general sense. But what certain writings may do is describe those rare moments that we have, though of course the real thing is much better than the description. To me what's beautiful is that there are people out there who has a definite sense of that closeness to life with total strangers, but of course to them they are not strangers. I don't think we have to over intellectualize it, but I think aside from the fact that it is a pleasant feeling, what that feeling is is very much along the lines of being one with others, whether it be your family members or someone else.

"Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water."

151

Intro's quote-o-rama

by Introspection in

i guess i've been inspired by stephen's quote threads, so i'm going to start one myself.. not one particular author here, just whatever i can find:.

q: why do you think that people are so protective of their egos?

why is it so hard to let go of one's ego?.

Introspection

Four monks were meditating in a monastery. All of a sudden the prayer flag on the roof started flapping.

The younger monk came out of his meditation and said: "Flag is flapping"

A more experienced monk said: "Wind is flapping"

A third monk who had been there for more than 20 years said: "Mind is flapping."

The fourth monk who was the eldest said, visibly annoyed: "Mouths are flapping!"

-Anonymous

1

Are miracles by faith or psychosomosis?

by Earnest in

psychosomosis?

no, it's not in my dictionary either.

but 'psychosomatic' relates to disorders caused or aggravated by psychological factors and so i use the term to refer to healing caused or expedited by psychological factors.

Introspection

This is interesting, and the effects do not appear to be limited to healing. What's funny is sometimes someone gets better on placebo, and then they find out it's placebo and then it worsens again.

I have to point out that complete belief might be easier if you are mentally retarded. In any case, it's also worth pointing out that the body naturally heals itself anyway, so it's kind of funny to say what causes it when it tends to do that normally. Although there are more dramatic and serious cases, I think it's a matter of allowing those natural abilities to work instead of fighting yourself. Most people's minds are kind of split up and fragmented as opposed to an organized, coordinated whole. Of course it is the nature of mind to distinguish between this and that, but it is possible to reach a state where it is focused. If the mind is normally (that is, most of the time) scattered, then focusing it and bringing it into equilibrium may in fact allow that natural healing to come through, so that it appears to be expedited whereas it was simply restricted before. In that case, it would be a matter of beliefs limiting its natural flow, although belief in the sense of being open to possibilities would be a different thing. It does appear that when there is this clinging to a certain belief to the exclusion of other things, there is a certain tension which could potentially limit any natural healing mechanism that brings the organism back into homeostasis. In any case, belief of the clinging type would serve as a restraint.

As for the healings in the bible being from God, that is only meaningful if you see God as a separate entity isn't it? For those that don't but believe in God in some sense, God is always involved, so the factor of intervention isn't there. Of course, in that case it isn't so personal like "I'll give you special treatment" or "okay, okay, you talked me into it."

22

Is Cybersex considered adultery

by butalbee in

what's your opinion on this?

what if you caught your husband or wife engaging in an odd situation at his/her computer screen?

is it cheating?

Introspection

Well, this would depend upon the relationship of course, obviously people in an open marriage don't feel the same way as people in a traditional relationship.

All I can say is that as an ex-JW and a person that values his mental freedom, I'm not much for any activity that hijacks my mind or emotions. Now this doesn't mean being a control freak, but rather I'm not excited about being controlled by any impulse, either. They come, and they go. I don't try to hang on to either state.

For me the problem with cybersex, porn and such is that it's a single element divorced from the rest of the experience. Heck, even if you just plain want sex it only gives you the visuals and maybe some audio right? Of course with sex itself we can say it is often split off from the person, or worse yet there ain't much of a person there to begin with. I just can't get excited over a sexy person without much of a personality anymore, or rather if it's a personality that I'm not interested in I'm really not interested in the rest of it. To me getting into a relationship like that is like going to work at a place that's really boring but they have really good coffee, or something..

7

JWs and the Pavlov experiments. [Train your dog]

by jerome in

some of you may have heard of experiments where a russian sicentis by the name pavlov was able to train some of his dogs to drool at the sight of a light bulb flashing or at the tune of a door bell ringing.. he did it by combining something that happens naturally [the dog drooling at sight of food] with something that normally dosent produce a responce [door bell ring and flashing light bulb] and then removing the food from the whole senario only after the drooling and a ringing door bell/flashing light bulb became intertwined in the dogs mind over time.. normally when a dog sees food it drools.

the sight of food is a natural stumlus and it therefore produces a naturall responce.

it helps the digestive process of the dog.. when a dog sees a light bulb flashing you wouldent expect it to drool now, would you?

Introspection

Hi Jerome, you can look up inductive reasoning on the web, but basically it is moving from specific examples to generalizations, whereas deductive reasoning is moving from generalizations to specifics. So an example of inductive reasoning would be:

Bob is nice to John
Bob is nice to Jane
Bob is nice to Mike
Bob is nice to Sarah
Bob is nice to me

Based on this, I conclude that Bob is a nice guy.

However, as I was saying just because your own observations show one thing, you don't know what it looks like overall. Bob could be a jerk to everyone else he runs into, so that 5 people wouldn't be very meaningful. Basically it's relative. If Bob only has dealings with 6 people in his life, 5 out of 6 is pretty good. But if he deals with 50 or so, then that certainly doesn't mean he's a nice guy.

17

Why do JWs segregate themselves?

by WinstonWigglesworth in

i was wondering today about how jw are not allowed to socialize with wordly people.

how can they judge other religions if they aren't allowed to witness religous practises other than their own?

my friend is a jw, so to better understand her religion i participated in one of her religious gatherings...yet when i invited her to my church she wasn't allowed.

Introspection

Winston, I think Quotes actually put it mildly in describing it as elitist. What you need to understand is that basically JW's are taught to think of their understanding as absolute truth, yet they are told not to go to other churches and such because it may weaken their faith. It's ironic isn't it, if you really do have the absolute truth how can anything shake you? But as it is they tell you it's the bottom line on one hand and on the other they don't want you listening to people of other faiths (but talking their ears off is ok, just one way) because it can be confusing. Of course what this implies is they are not taught to REALLY think or weigh the truth, but JUST believe.

20

what if

by raven101 in

don't know if this is the appropriate place to post this it certainly isn't a jw belief and i don't believe in believing (much of anything), but i'm always theorizing always speculatin' and heres a particular speculation i've been hypothesizing for some while now, something a really powerful post in this forum inspired me to throw out here for your perusal.

whatever the reaction, your sure to have one!.

think about this, you know suffering, struggling, forging on .

Introspection

I would agree that the idea is not new, but reading it in a different way. There are atleast two traditions which recognizes non-duality, including but not limited to Advaita Vedanta as well as Buddhism. This is hard for people who believe in the traditional concept of God to understand, or in fact any one of us and more so those living in an individualistic society, but another way of expressing it is that there is only spirit, and that all is one unified whole.

This doesn't mean that you as an individual human has absolute knowledge and power and can do whatever you want, but it typically involves a kind of surrender, you might even say being one with God. (which is, of course a different statement from being God in the typical dualistic sense) Instead of a literal understanding of this scripture in Genesis, a non-dual understanding would be that duality itself began, "knowing good and evil". In it's fundamental form it is a type of fragmentation, the distinction between self and other, which could extend to psychopathologies within the individual like multiple personalities and schizophrenia. Basically, a dualistic understanding of things such as the perspective of good and evil is a relative one, simply by the fact that you have to define one thing by it's opposite. Furthermore, if it is relative, it is also not absolute, not permanent. Each one is defined by the other.

The phenomena which we call evil, then, is not the "other side" from this perspective, but rather it is a kind of imbalance (consider justice) from extremes, perhaps the best example of this is the abusive and immoral behavior we see in religious authorities. Regardless of how exactly this manifests, the underlying condition is typically a matter of taking the relative to be absolute, and since it is the nature of the relative to turn around toward it's opposite, often it snaps back hard going to the other extreme. So an example might be how one person becomes self righteous in their views, and in asserting those views as absolute they react violently to the views of others, not realizing that both these views are fundamentally relative in nature.

In fact, in a way this is also a reaction to the absolute truth, because by holding on to a limited, relative truth as absolute they deny the REAL absolute because theirs wasn't that to begin with, but they take it to be that out of ignorance. Yet another side to this behavior is that one clings to ideas in terms of the absolute so tightly that they ignore all things relative, (like their relatives, perhaps..) whereas things like dealing with people is just what happens in life as a human. Not only that, one with this attitude may fail to see that ideas by their very nature ARE relative, and by clinging to them they can never possess the truth, as even abstract concepts expressed through tools like language only POINTS to the absolute truth, AT BEST. On that note, I'll end my efforts at pointing.

7

JWs and the Pavlov experiments. [Train your dog]

by jerome in

some of you may have heard of experiments where a russian sicentis by the name pavlov was able to train some of his dogs to drool at the sight of a light bulb flashing or at the tune of a door bell ringing.. he did it by combining something that happens naturally [the dog drooling at sight of food] with something that normally dosent produce a responce [door bell ring and flashing light bulb] and then removing the food from the whole senario only after the drooling and a ringing door bell/flashing light bulb became intertwined in the dogs mind over time.. normally when a dog sees food it drools.

the sight of food is a natural stumlus and it therefore produces a naturall responce.

it helps the digestive process of the dog.. when a dog sees a light bulb flashing you wouldent expect it to drool now, would you?

Introspection

Hmm, lets take a look at this.. Technically it's not the same kind of conditioning, since Pavlov's dogs are an example of classical conditioning. I think it might be more helpful to see where the logic breaks down here.

The reasoning is if A then B, if B then C. So if A, then C. In other words, if A is true, then B is true. If B is true, then C is true. Since A is true then if follows that C is true.

In this case, the reasoning is basically if it's from the Watchtower, (A) it's God's counsel. (B)

If God gives counsel, (B) then I obey. (C)

So if the Watchtower says something, (A) then I obey. (C)

Now the problem of course lies between A and B. You kind of forget about that leap and start thinking of it in two parts, (A and C)because it goes without saying that the Watchtower is God's channel of communication, or so you think.

The logic of A to B which states the Watchtower speaks God's counsel is probably from a bit of inductive reasoning, which is where you have a certain amount of evidence (or what you consider evidence) that leads you to a certain conclusion. Of course there's a lot of things we can get into, like faulty premises in considering some things as reasons to believe a given organization speaks for God, but the important thing to note here is that even if all of the premises are true it is NEVER a certainty when you use inductive reasoning, it is only more PROBABLE because of the amount of evidence you have gathered, which of course is usually very subjective.

So basically, you're going from a bit of reasoning (inductive) that is not definite to one that is, (deductive) since the latter is pretty much a mathematical fact. It is like saying if I have two dimes, then I have $0.25. If I have $0.25, then I can change it into a quarter. Well, since a dime is only $0.10 it just does not add up to $0.25. While the monetary value in the example is small, the claim that any organization or what/whoever speaks for God is not small. In any case, it just does not add up.

Edited to add:

It should be noted that as much evidence as you think you have in inductive reasoning, it may not be enough just because you think it is. You might think 10 reasons are plenty, but if the total list of criteria is say 50, or anything greater than 10, then it's not true. But the bottom line is since inductive reasoning is not absolute, and you're plugging that into a piece of deductive reasoning, then it does not hold that the conclusion you reach through that bit of deductive reasoning is true, because you can't be sure your shopping list of evidence is all that is needed to prove things conclusively.

I'd like to open this up just as Jerome did, did I miss anything?

43

Happy JW Marriages the Impossible Dream?

by IslandWoman in

while it is not impossible to have a happy marriage in the jw religion for many it is hard, for some it is very hard to maintain happiness in their marriage.

the watchtower raises the bar so very high in every aspect of life, marriage included.

the watchtower literature encourages a jw married couple to be practically perfect, or at least that is the goal set before them.

Introspection

You have some valid points, but I think it is absurd to assume that the entire JW community is putting on an "act." I'm sure many are, but there are probably just as many who truly desire to please God, and their families.

Amac, I don't think every individual in the JW community is putting on an act, however I think the fact that the organization as a whole places such emphasis on behavior, the outer appearances is very significant. It's not about the people who happens to be involved with the organization at any given point in time, but rather the organization itself and how it functions. I do believe there are sincere people, I myself really believed it when I was a witness. And of course, their reason for being good husbands and wifes are not necessarily all external.

And of course it is "idolatry", although that is not a good descriptive, but I understand what your point is. We all are influenced by something or someone, whether you follow Ayn Rand or the Bible. I see nothing wrong with people following the Bible, or Leave it to Beaver for that matter.

Regardless of the word of choice, if one "follows" I think they fall into that category. I'm sure you remember talk about bible principles being thrown around from the podium, but why is it that there's so much confusion when it comes to conscience matters, if they really understand the principles? In response to your statement about following the bible and such, I don't think there's anything "wrong" with it, because I don't see it as a question of right and wrong. However, as I was saying it is simply rather lifeless if you just stick to a model. It's like an artist who has been through art school but can only produce works that look like copies of the past masters, and yet there is nothing that can be called his own. I think any aspect of life is similar to this. In the same way, when we look at this desire to be right, do the right things a husband or wife are supposed to do, etc., then you become fixated on this standard rather than acting with any kind of insight.

In fact, isn't this why we have religions deviating from the original core message, important qualities like love and such? It's really rather typical. If nothing else, when you have so many specific rules or strong suggestions on how people are supposed to behave, then you are steering away from the importance of understanding the principles. It's like the whole authoritarian parenting model. If people don't come to maturity here individually, how can they have a good marriage? I'll even grant you that two people may get along at that same level, but it's just kind of sad that neither of them reached their potential by holding this narrow view of living life in the 'right' 'way'.

43

Happy JW Marriages the Impossible Dream?

by IslandWoman in

while it is not impossible to have a happy marriage in the jw religion for many it is hard, for some it is very hard to maintain happiness in their marriage.

the watchtower raises the bar so very high in every aspect of life, marriage included.

the watchtower literature encourages a jw married couple to be practically perfect, or at least that is the goal set before them.

Introspection

The problem with this "direction" is that you are adhering to some external standard rather than working with people, with their hearts and minds. Just because you read some nice sounding stuff and answered questions pointing to an answer planted in the paragraph it doesn't mean your mind REALLY change in any way, it just means you filled it with some new stuff.

Whether you successfully program a person is irrelevant. You might say the programming is good behavior, but it's still programming. The thing the question and answer format supposedly helps you do is to come to the conclusion yourself, but it's really rather like a straw man argument since they basically told you what the answer is, and in any given "study" session you are eventually told what the "right" answer is, if you answer any other way.

In fact, I would say it's pretty much like idolatry. You have this fixed image of how you should behave, regardless of whether it has to do with marriage or whatever. This may sound strange, but as we know idolatry isn't limited to literal graven images, it could be with other things and ways of behavior. I say that the whole Leave it to Beaver (or if you like, the Brady Bunch) era TV family is just another idol, and you can add the witness family model too, just as they portray it at the convention dramas.

The thing is, you might actually have a nice model family sometimes, but because it is behaviorally based rather than coming from an open mind and heart, it's rather like a literal model, you might as well have a plastic model of an airplane instead of the actual airplane. Even if it does "work", it's just imitating the real thing. There's no life to it. So it is the same with individuals, and is it any surprise when the relationship is between two individuals like that?

Here's a side point. I don't want to hijack this thread or anything, but it relates in that it has to do with human relationships. How are witnesses doing with informal witnessing these days? My guess is it's as miserable as ever. We can get into little specifics here, but the key problem is it does not come naturally. If it's coming from the heart, one free of fear, then you'll just naturally talk about it. But I've found this to be fairly rare, and I think that just goes to show how utterly fake the whole thing is. You can get people to act a certain way, but that's all it is, an act.