Posts by Awen

51

ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT DINOSAURS AREN'T MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD!

by Mary in

jw
friends

yesterday, i went out for lunch with my parents when my mother made mention of something she had read in the newspaper about some new discovery of species that went extinct millions of years ago.

she asked my father what method is used to determine the age of something, because of course, this flies directly in face of the biblical account of life on this planet being only a few thousand years old.. anyway, my father related a story that some brother he ran into recently at the assembly told him.

this [unnamed] brother related a story told to him by another [unnamed] elder who knew an [unnamed] circuit serpent who was "really chummy with one of the [unnamed] executives at the royal ontario museum".

Awen

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

I did a Google search for "Is radio carbon dating accurate" and got a lot of religious sites. This one, being much the same seems to use scientific data and shows the limits of RC14 dating.

I used to think RC-14 dating was proven accurate beyond a doubt. Then I read how dates are actually determined and that RC-14 is unreliable because there is so much information that is unknown about the amount of Carbon in Earth's atmosphere in the past and how much it has increased or decreased over the millenia. RC-14 dating assumes that the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant. The only problem with this is erupting volcanoes can spew carbon into the atmosphere, (obviously increasing the carbon content), thus making the dating of specimens vary wildly depending upon from where the samples were taken. Also there is a 30,000 year limit on RC-14. So how do scientists come up with the millions of years they tack onto the age of dinosaurs and the earth itself?

Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material
("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v)

We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii)

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.

Still it is not my intention to sway anyone over to my point of view. Look at the information and decide for yourself. Look up counter arguments for the accuracy of RC-14 dating.

38

The WT Headship Principle (tm): Did you ever REALLY buy it?

by Open mind in

i believed that god was the big boss and his first-line supervisor was jesus.. .

everything beyond that got a bit shaky for me throughout my jw life.. .

but this bit, i never bought into for even an instant: the husband is the head of the wife.. .

Awen

I never bought into it. I always saw it as a team effort. Having different reproductive organs does not make one person smarter or more capable than another. I've met plenty of Brothers who were dumb as bricks and their wives were constantly having to explain things to them or make excuses for their husband's stupidity, yet still be in submission to them.

I've read too much Jewish and Christian history to see how this "principle" is just ripe for abuse and many times it has been. I think it's archaic and barbaric and has no place in a religion built upon love.

7

First Aid, Witnesses and Principles of the good samaritan

by Married to the Mob in

there is another thread on here regarding elders and cpr.. having read the thread and not wishing to hijack it some thoughts struck me.. in most places in north america you don't have a legal duty to help someone in need if you are a first aider.

to aid this there are the principles of the good samaritan.

these are identified by the st john ambulance as:.

Awen

I have known JW's who would refuse to help Dfed and DAed people, yet complain when they themselves weren't helped. It seems to me that DFed people have more compassion than JW's in good standing and will help anyone.

What I thought odd about this attitude is a JW is more likely to help a non-JW than someone who was DFed....I mean what's the difference?

A person in need is a person in need, it shouldn't matter who they are or what they once were, JW or not.

9

Others not of this fold, thoughts?

by TheJigsUp in

jw
friends

i read this again just the other day in a post here i believe.

where jesus said he has 'others not of this fold'.

the context it was quoted in i found curious and it reminded me of thoughts i had regarding the words when i read them 'for myself'.

Awen

Agreed, Gentiles.

Jesus was first and foremost sent to the "lost sheep of Israel" but then he said he had "other sheep which were not of this fold, who would hear his voice" which pretty much started with the conversion of the Roman Centurion Cornelius by the Apostle Peter. Eventually they would become "one flock" with "one Shepherd".

84

Being honest with yourself, could you have reasonably adjusted your attitude and continued on as a JW?

by miseryloveselders in

jw
friends

i ask this question in harmony with deedub's swan song thread which i linked below.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/private/205902/1/time-to-say-good-bye.

to some degree, i think i understand where she's coming from.

just speaking from my own experiences since stepping into the world of anonymous apostacy, i went through a few different phases of personal outlooks.

Awen

While I couldn't adjust my attitude and way of thinking, what I could and would do is adjust how I related to the Organization. In my opinion the rank and file JW's are decived just like Eve was. Although in their hearts they know God's laws and that there is a difference between what they know and the stuff coming from Brooklyn they won't give it up because of their love for YHWH. Unfortunatley the Governing Body has convinced many through careful manipulation that they are God's channel and to rebel against them is to rebel against God. The Bible shows this simply isn't the case in regards to YHWH's dealings with apostate Israel and the many prophets he sent against them.

So for me, I have been entertaining the notion of going back and being kind to the DFed ones, showing love and compassion and if reinstated (which is not really a concern of mine) trying to slowly lift the blinders off others. I have no illusions about how hard a task it will be, but love for others compels me to at least try. I can only do so much on an internet forum, so for me it has to be a person to person encounter. I'm sure I will be looked upon as the most evil and vile thing to walk on two legs and I accept that notion. After all Jesus and the Apostles were looked upon in the same way, but to do any less than to pick up my cross and walk with Jesus would be tantamount to disowning him.

Besides the following scripture makes me feel this is what I should be doing. Not for my sake, but for the love of Christ.

Matthew 10:37-39 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Your mileage may vary of course.

7

First Aid, Witnesses and Principles of the good samaritan

by Married to the Mob in

there is another thread on here regarding elders and cpr.. having read the thread and not wishing to hijack it some thoughts struck me.. in most places in north america you don't have a legal duty to help someone in need if you are a first aider.

to aid this there are the principles of the good samaritan.

these are identified by the st john ambulance as:.

Awen

Here in America (and I speak as a former Firefighter), if you have First responder training or are a Police Officer, Firefighter, EMT, Paramedic or Nurse and you bypass the scene of an accident without rendering aid, and are caught you can be helf leagally responsible.

This supercedes, imo, anything the WTBS has to say about it. Just as Jesus said that "the sabbath came into being for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the sabbath" (meaning laws could be broken if a life was at stake)

In America, the Good Samaritan laws protects those without first aid training who, in an attempt to help someone, actually causes harm. It also punishes those who have medical training but through the course of their actions cause an individual to be harmed.

I recall this story of an EMT in my area who happened upon a car wreck. The man driving the car had not been wearing his seat belt and had fell upon the steering wheel of his car, crushing his windpipe at the base of his neck. Because of this he was slowly suffocating. Only a tracheotomy would save his life. So the EMT took his ball point pen and stabbed the man through the larynx, then removed the top and innermost parts of the pen (while holding it in place) which allowed the man to breathe through the now hollow ball point pen. The EMT called for assistance and when they arrived, he left. The EMT was later sued by the man for this procedure as in my state a tracheotomy can only be performed by a doctor. So despite saving the man's life, the EMT was sued for his Good Samaritan act.

Another man happened upon a rolled over vehicle which was spilling gasoline everwhere. Worrying that an explosion was iminent, the Good Samaritan put his own life in danger and pulled the victim from the car, rather forcibly. What he didn't know was the man had several broken vertebrae in his back as a result of the rollover and his being removed without a backboard made his injuries worse. But because the GS had no medical training and no way of knowing this, he was not held liable for further injuring the victim. he was exonerated of any wrong doing.

So it depends.

For me, I would do the right thing and help anyone, JW or not. Love is more important than a law, which in my opinion Jesus clearly showed whn he healed people on the Sabbath, something the religious leaders of his day condemned because it was against the Law of Moses.

16

Jesus Potter and the Muggles of Gullibility.

by whereami in

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygdnpmjgq8m .

Awen

This video was hilarious. I needed a great laugh.

Someone once told me that Henry Ford was the founder of the Ford Motor Company here in America. I mean just because his name is on those cars doesn't make it true. Likewise just because every invention, piece of technology and thing we use in everyday life already exists in some manner in nature and mankind merely copied what was already there, in no way means there is a vast intelligence somewhere that we can barely grasp who made it all. The very idea is just too absurd to even consider. Of course these incredibly complex designs and forms of life that our brightest human minds have only begun to unlock in no way means that they couldn't of all happened by chance. Of course they did!

Preposterous.

To even consider for a moment that there is a God to which we are all accountable to is bordering on insanity.

Logic and science says there has to be proof. I can tell you that I have never walked outside my door everyday and seen a a beautiful complex world with myrriads of lifeforms existing in a balanced ecosytem being sustained by interdependence upon one another. It just isn't there.

There are no universal laws that keep the planet's axis balanced at a certain angle, no fixed amount of time in which the earth circles the sun, no weird cosmic force that keeps humans planted squarely upon the ground instead of floating off into space.

Last of all there is no book that was given to mankind that explains a lot of this and gives scientific data on the shape of the earth, the watercycle and the formation of life, not to mention certain historical events that, although doubted at first by the scientific community later proved to be true.

It simply doesn't exist.

Oh and in case you missed it. Yes, I am mocking you.

3

Holy Spirit (vs. The Holy Spirit)... the Simple Answer...

by AGuest in

to the household of god, israel, and those who go with, may you all have peace!.

as we all know, the issue of the holy spirit as a third person of a "godhead" has been debated for, well, millenia.

one reason for this exhausting but ongoing line of discussion is the confusion between the person of the holy spirit (which is our lord, jaheshua mischajah), and god's holy spirit... the latter which the body was to receive after our lord returned to the father.

Awen

The chapter and verse numbers your quoted do not match what's in the actual scriptures. You're off by one.

Actually it's quoted this way:

38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."

39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

Now onto what I have discerned.

John 15:26 "But I will send you the Advocate--the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will testify all about me."

This scripture would seem to disprove your above statement that the Holy Spirit and Christ are one and the same.

Jesus is speaking about the Holy Spirit in the third person, rather than in the first. If the Holy Spirit is indeed Christ then Jesus would have merely said he himself would return.

What the verses are seeming to indicate to me is not so much that Jesus becomes the Holy Spirit, but rather he is given his own to portion as he sees fit. When on earth in human form, he dispensed the HS that had been given to him by God.

When he ascended it seems to be saying that when he was glorified he received his own personal type of power. Remember that in John 1:1 we read that all things were created through Christ (using YHWH"s power or Holy Spirit) yet when Jesus ascends and is glorified he becomes a god all his own, yet still submits himself to YHWH.

John 5: 25-29 "Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. 28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment. 30 I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

After his resurrection Jesus proclaimed to his disciples that:

Matthew 28:18 "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

These scriptures would seem to convey the message that after Jesus ascended to heaven and was glorified, he received his own personal type of Holy Spirit and while not seeking to do his own will, but that of YHWH"s, he sends it out and apportions it to others as he sees fit.

11

Can't call him father, so "This is my [dad, daddy, daddyo, papa, pops, pappy, sire, beginner, don, begetter, male parent]

by FatFreek 2005 in

dear question from readers .

i realize that watchtower is clear in avoiding fancy titles when it comes to people.

jesus said, "do not call anyone your father on earth".

Awen

Check out this link, which is concerning the title of "Father" that is used by the Catholic Church. It goes into great detail and shows that Jesus and the Christian writers often referred to genetic fathers and people who weren't their natural fathers by this title.

http://catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/father.htm

15

Would you say anything to someone that is accepting JW literature ?

by troubled mind in

there is a woman at the place i work that has studied off and on for several yrs with one of the jw employees .

today i was in her office and i noticed in her bookcase a collection of jw literature .

she has the insight books , a revelation book and some other brochures .

Awen

I had this happen at my work place. A woman was studying with the Witnesses. I asked her what she had learned and she told me. She asked for clarification on a few points that she didn't quite understand. I made it a point that if she didn't understand something that was being presented to her, to make sure she kept the Witness on subject and not let them stray from it until she was satisfied with the answer. If anyone is going to put themself in the place of being a teacher, then they need to know what they are talking about and be able to answer any and all questions put to them. To do otherwise is a great disservice to the student. There are no bad students, only bad teachers (as I have been told repeatedly).

She then asked me why I was no longer a JW and I explained some of the lesser known aspects of the culture, including the elders getting into one's personal business, being spied upon, the sex abuse the flip flops on the doctrine and so many other things. If she really wanted to know God, she merely had to open her Bible and read it, belonging to a church isn't necessary, unless she just desires human contact. I told her to use the internet to research various JW teachings and let her know they would most likely be the words of ex-JW's (many who have an axe to grind with the WTBTS), but overall their opinions were valid. Consider that they all speak about the same issues, then it stands to reason there is something dreadfully wrong.

I re-emphasized that her JW study conductor would frown upon her doing independent research but that is their nature. She has the right to be fully informed about them and I would be remiss as a Christian if I saw someone walking towards a cliff and didn't notify them of it's existence.

Whether she chose to walk over that cliff is her business, but still it's the loving thing to do to let her know what's ahead.

She did her research, asked me some more questions and asked her study conductor the same questions (they were evaded) or put off until later. She said it seemed that they wanted her to be baptized first before they would answer those questions. She came to the conclusion on her own that something wasn't quite right about them and although they seemed nice enough it wasn't enough for her to hand over her freedoms to a bunch of strangers who were evasive about the history of their religion.

She discontinued her study.

She did continue to ask me questions and I referred her to the Bible and what it said regarding her various questions.