just n from bethel

Joined

• started 36 topics
• posted 649 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by just n from bethel

• 
  9

  Irony In Watchtower defense of religious freedom in Russia

  by just n from bethel in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  while i wholeheartedly will not support a governmental ban on jws or any other religion for that matter, i find the latest topic at www.jw-media.org a bit ironic.

  the title is:.

  expression of christian faith is basis for criminal prosecution in russia.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  There is a video out now at: www.jw-media.org/rus/rus04e.htm

  Here are some notable quotes, bold mine:

  “Gorno-Altaysk [the prosecuting city] apparently lacks one vital resource: religious tolerance – the allowing for exchange of religious information and ideas…”

  “Aleksandr …is being charged with inciting religious enmity. At the heart of the trial is the question: Is it a crime to give someone religious information when requested?”

  “The criminal case has profound implications for freedom of expression of religious belief…throughout Europe.”

  “Throughout the year secret [surveillance operations] have been conducted … on all the Witnesses [in the city] including phone tapping and interception of mail …”

  “What is the purpose of raising charges and not allowing the person an opportunity to refute them? It is not possible to defend oneself against such charges because this is just nonsense.”

  Again - I hope 2 things can come of this. First, I do hope that JWs win the case because Russia's history of oppression is disgusting and this would be nothing more than a regression for anybody wanting freedom in Russia.

  2nd - I hope anyone charged with apostasy can present a defense with these statements and Watchtower testimonies about the importance of freedom of expression.

  The irony continues.
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  Yeah - You are so right about the Dawkins crusaders. I'm pretty sure I'll never be one.

  As for analyzing scientific conlcusions - I'm always happy that the method and process always take us deeper into matters. If it turns out the NASA scientists deemed their findings prematurely, then so be it. That's great. The method is what allowed their original ideas to be overturned. I honestly don't know enough about the whole NASA ordeal (nor do I really care). However, I have been to Mono Lake and that place does look like it could inhabit alien life - how's that for a scientific observation?
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  Curtains - Well however you see it and think others saw it - I never framed an idea that directed attention away from the process. Nothing I said had anything to do with saintliness or whatever. That was what you did and it doesn't seem to address the issue. But since I never have even read Dawkins, I could care less how he may try and make it about the people. I was only speaking about the method. It is not used in religion.

  A) A person of deeply held religous convictions posts an article that she thinks is an example of how science is "untrustworthy".

  B) That very process though, of discovering factual conclusions, which may later overturn or add to the original conclusion is exactly what makes science trustworthy.

  C) The fact is, that many religious individuals (particularly ones that try to preach their version of Christianity here) don't carry out that process on their own beliefs. Now I really understand that some just don't want to. They are happy with their current belief system and they prefer not to analyze it's veracity using a scientific method. I can respect that. But to criticize the process itself, when applied to scientific discovery, that's the kind of thinking that will keep people in the dark age mentality - heck it could even keep some doubting lurkers in the Witnesses.

  BTW OT - why do those who were never JWs (or raised to be), nor married to one, come here and post their brand of beliefs? I know it's not a lot but, if I was happy with some Christian belief system or other denom, I could never picture myself going to an ex-mormon or ex-muslim board and posting scripture after scripture, knowing that there is no way I could relate to them. Just me, I suppose. Sorry OT.
• 
  13

  HACKERS

  by LV101 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know nothing about hackers but overheard local radio commentator crediting hackers for information about the wikileaks saga and how he loves hackers and how they were responsible for the facts being released about scientology, also --- and many other matters.

  why are they not helping us w/facts about how the watchtower is destructive/dangerous --- media coverage (more) would be excellent.

  recall metatron posted how successful one man can be (referring to the wikileaks' incident) and it looks like hackers are the dream ticket.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  Also - the lack of interest by the media and/or hackers alike should help all former JWs realize something if they haven't already. The world really doesn't care about this little adventist offshoot religion. You can always try to go to 4chan though and see if they'd be interested in causing havoc for the JWs. They did it for Scientologists.
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  My bad Nick and Curtains - - easy to miss some of the nonessential details when your multitasking at work. Nonetheless - misdirecting the issue to being about general moral caliber of scientists vs Christians is not really the point here. It is about the process of discovery, plain and simple.

  BTW Nick I'm not closed to reading Dawkins or others from the standpoint of me discounting his thinking. I'm sure it is quite in line with some of my own ways. I simply have no desire for the sake of time - my personal time that is. I'm sure I would agree with much of his rationale as I probably already do. I just have chosen to spend time on other things I enjoy more. It's kind of like why I never read COC and other Franz books. I'm sure I would agree with many of his points, But reading it would take time I don't have and all it would do is reinforce much of what I already believe about the JW doctrine. Sorry if my quick post made it sound otherwise.

  Right now I'm more interested in reading Seneca and Diderot.
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  RE: Aguest's reply to me:

  Which is why you used the expression "Uh-Oh" - nobody uses that when they think something is wrong or bad. You can reword it however you want. But basically you want to make it out that science - in your word is "untrustworthy". In doing so you completely miss the whole point, as usual. What the article really shows is the process of discovery. If you were to use this process to examine what you think are visions or voices from your lord, and the process presented extensive evidence that you were only experiencing effects of a medical condition - you would refuse to believe it. However, you, along with countless other believers in personal revelations from their Islamic, Hindu, or Christian supernatural lords, will likely never use a scientific method to prove it's not a medical condition. But what I see - is that religous believers of all sort, love to jump up and shout anytime a scientific theory or discovery is later changed or shown to be incorrect. Of course that's the whole point of the analytical process - and the scientists accept that - even if it proves incorrect something they once deeply believed was correct.
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  Curtains - I've never read Dawkins nor do I have the desire to. I have however, taken numerous undergraduate and graduate level science, math, and history courses. Not once was his name even mentioned in discussing the various anayltical methods employed to discover facts about our life and world. This thread has nothing to do with some prominent athiestic book promoter. By trying to bring him in to the discussion you are creating a classic straw man fallacy. So again - nobody on this thread is trying to make scientists out to be something their not. Your argument falls flat.

  The method, the process, however is what is being discussed. The process is simply not used when it comes to examining one's religous beliefs (not by most believers anyway). The OP made it out like a contradiction in the evidence of a new discovery is somehow a bad thing for science. It's not. This is part of the process. The reason that many (I'm not saying all - but yes there are more than a few and far between) religulous don't want to follow a method like this - is because of exactly what may be happening here in this new scientific discovery. Analysis may show that conclusions are incorrect. Science wants that - that's why they have this thing called the 'null hypothesis'. If religions promoted testing for a null hypothesis in their belief system .. well let's face it - the conclusions that many thought they had would turn out incorrect.
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  Mad - quit reading my mind and posting at the same time.
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  Curtains - It is possible I may be basing some of my observations by what I see here in this forum. A number of so called Christians here have never even been a JW and like to use this board as their personal territory to try and preach a bunch of their so-called Christian propaganda on newly exiting JWs (not to mention any names Chalam). But I don't see anybody that is making the case that scientists are saintly. I don't care if 99% of scientists are admitted self-absorbent assholes. The process is what is respected and quite defined. There is no similar process in religion. Which is why most religulous folks are of their religious beliefs for primarily one reason only - where they were born. It has nothing to do with an examine-the-facts process of any sorts.
• 
  53

  Uh-oh...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?gt1=38001.

  ah, well... nobody's perfect.. peace!.

  sa, of the "well, maybe except christ class", on her own....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  just n from bethel

  It is interesting how most in the scientific community welcome scrutiny and ideas that improve, and sometimes nullify a preliminary hypothesis. This process has brought nothing but positive changes, improvements, and ultimately a solidifying of indisputable testable facts. The religulous love to point at this process and scoff at it as if it's an indication that the scientific process is meaningless. Actually, the opposite is the case. Most scientists welcome the analytical method that might result in proving their original conclusions incorrect. And upon abundance of evidence that contradicts an original scientific theory or hypothesis, the scientists will be more than willing to recognize the correction. They will not keep saying that 'even though there is obvious insurmountable evidence that proves my theory wrong, I am going to keep believing it.' No that just doesn't happen with those educated in even rudimentary scientific methods. Where might you see this though?

  Well, take that same process and apply it to religulous folk. Among themselves, even within the same general belief system - Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc., they do not welcome any process that might prove their conclusions incorrect. The personal revelationist will argue that their visions are more accurate while the literal Bible believer will argue his are. Upon being shown the mountains of evidence which debunk either or both of their conclusions, they will continue to persist their ideas are correct. Very different than what happens with those that use a scientific process.