Posts by rawe

41

If You Were A Bro(tm) Did You Enjoy The Prestiage Of Giving A Talk? Do You Miss It?

by LoisLane looking for Superman in

jw
friends

i was a sister(tm).

i was only allowed to give talks to my householder.. you brother's(tm), all eyes were on you.. what was that like?.

did you enjoy it?.

rawe

Hi LoisLane,

I found giving parts pretty nerve wracking upto the point of starting, but if I was well prepared I felt good about it, especially when it was done! I can still recall vividly some of the parts, especially one funeral talk I gave for a pre-mature baby that died at 9 days.

After leaving the faith I had the truly odd experience of two individuals who left the faith ahead of me tell me that something I had said during The Watchtower review of the circuit assembly made them think that perhaps being a Witness wasn't for them. It went this way. The Watchtower made the point the 'law' was a 'tutor' leading to Christ and in ancient times a 'tutor' was one who lead the student on the path to the teacher. Furthermore, the Jews had failed to appreciate this role of the law, but instead hung on to it.

I thought that was kind of a neat idea. So I said... you know what it is like when your child first goes to school. Afterwards you'll ask your child how their day had gone and make sure not to leave out any details. So they start by telling you they got on the bus, the bus stopped several times to pick up additional students, then finally the bus got to school and the students got off, then the bus went to the bus garage stayed there for the day, then... "Wait... did you not get off the bus?" "Those Jews needed to get off that bus... I concluded." Although I really wasn't trying to make a joke the illustration got a fairly hearty chuckle from the audience. But for my two, now ex-JW friends, it was apparently an epiphany moment when they realized... "I need to get off THIS BUS!"

Cheers,

-Randy

45

If anyone is interested in my 'Coming out' video on Youtube....

by Newly Enlightened in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hx5mghrvbs.

rawe

Hi Kim,

Very much enjoyed your video! I like how you answered the question of "why make a video?" When some Witnesses raise that objection there is this implication that somehow it is wrong for former members to express themselves. How ironic! A faith that teach it's members to invade the private lives of people in a door-to-door fashion should be the very last ones to suggest others should not be allowed to express themselves. I also liked your point about the Reasoning Book. Indeed, I think few leave the organization because they've stumbled on material from sites like jwfacts.com. Rather the story you hear time and again is the very material produced by The Watchtower Society creates concern. Or the actions of leaders or others in the faith. It is only after the internal search fails that folks tend to finally give themselves permission to look outside. It is then that sites like jwfacts.com and others give the seeker the confidence they are not crazy or alone in the doubts about the faith.

I'm sorry to hear local elders decided to slander you and your husband, simply because you've decided you can no longer believe what Witnesses believe. Of course we appreciate this is one clear sign the doctrine of the faith is really not solidly based. Instead fear and intimitation tactics are used in place of direct honesty -- sad really. Many good people are in the faith, alas the leadership does not treat them with honor.

If ever you are in the Phoenix/Chandler, AZ area -- look up our meetup groups (one on meetup.com and the other on groupspaces.com). It is nice to meet with follow ex-Witnesses face to face.

Cheers,

-Randy

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

rawe

Hi Everyone,

fwiw: I self-identify as an atheist, but...

I believe God does exist, within the minds of believers and often as a shared cultural experience/concept within groups.

I believe it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, thus I would not claim I can prove God does not exist.

I believe that if God does exist, is a law-of-nature-breaker-miracle-worker and interactive with our world, then knowledge, any knowledge, even in principal, is beyond what we can reach.

As an atheist, I do exactly what I want. Just turns out I want to do things, like work, be loyal, not steal or lie, etc.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

Did Jesus really exist?

by slimboyfat in

i had been wondering over the past few years whether there really was a historical jesus at all, until a few months ago when i read bart ehrman's latest book "did jesus exist?

" initially i was persuaded by his argument that the nt contains multiple sources that testify to jesus' existence.

but more recently i have been reading the christ myth position of richard carrier and his responses to ehrman.

rawe

Hi Ismael,

"Book of Matthew describes a series of very extraordinary events, including massive earthquakes followed by a darkness covering the land."

My view is it is more likely than not that a real person name Jesus was the inspiration for the religion of Christianity. Indeed your argument is a good one against some of the more extraordinary events of the gospels being actual real events that affected a large population. On the other hand the more modest view of the historical Jesus would make for a very small target in terms of history. To wit he was active for only 3 1/2 years and had direct impact/contact with a few fervent believers.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

Did Jesus really exist?

by slimboyfat in

i had been wondering over the past few years whether there really was a historical jesus at all, until a few months ago when i read bart ehrman's latest book "did jesus exist?

" initially i was persuaded by his argument that the nt contains multiple sources that testify to jesus' existence.

but more recently i have been reading the christ myth position of richard carrier and his responses to ehrman.

rawe

Hi Ismael,

"Even more extravagant is how Matthew also describes dead people rising from their graves and roaming the streets."

Unless I'm mistaken the official Witness belief on this event is not that dead people rose in terms of a ressurection. Rather they believe the earthquake caused graves to open and expose the corpse of the dead individual.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. I found your written English to be excellent.

22

Evolution vs. God

by Perry in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0u3-2cgomq&list=plimax6whtnhc34_zbxbtcgvgvgxk3qzvu.

rawe

Hi Designs,

"Perry rarely responds."

Oh, okay. That will make it difficult to understand how Perry processes the "were you there?" line of argument. I'll assume, he posts this video because he feels it communicates an important message.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

Did Jesus really exist?

by slimboyfat in

i had been wondering over the past few years whether there really was a historical jesus at all, until a few months ago when i read bart ehrman's latest book "did jesus exist?

" initially i was persuaded by his argument that the nt contains multiple sources that testify to jesus' existence.

but more recently i have been reading the christ myth position of richard carrier and his responses to ehrman.

rawe

Hi Slimboyfat,

I am not schooled well enough in the arguments to comment too much one way or the other. However, for the moment, I believe a literal person named Jesus likely existed and was the inspiration for Christianity later filled out and defined by Paul. I think many of the stories about him in the NT go beyond the literally true for religious/prophetic reasons (such as his birth in Bethlehem, move to Egypt, etc).

To me a story of an inspiring rabbi who talked about the Kingdom of God, but then got himself killed by the Romans, is more economical than early Christian using pure invention to create his character. In the modern world we also generally see people follow real-person living Christ-like characters, such as Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Vernon Howell (David Koresh) and Sun Myung Moon. If we had more examples of Paul-like leaders creating mythical Christ-like characters to follow, I would tilt my views in that direction.

Cheers,

-Randy

22

Evolution vs. God

by Perry in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0u3-2cgomq&list=plimax6whtnhc34_zbxbtcgvgvgxk3qzvu.

rawe

Hi AndDontCallMeShirley,

Perry hasn't responded, which is okay. But I would like to explore the idea of observation as it applies to the theory of evolution, science in general and religious experience and teachings. I believe there are key reasons tied to observation why the comment was "65 million" and not some other number. Most things we know relate to the past.

I don't mind the "were you there?" question if asked sincerely. It can be a starting point. So... how can we get "there?" The "there?" is not even just about time it can be about size or distance. How do we know about atoms, electrons, etc? How do we know the landscape of Mars when we have not personally been there?

Cheers,

-Randy

22

Evolution vs. God

by Perry in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0u3-2cgomq&list=plimax6whtnhc34_zbxbtcgvgvgxk3qzvu.

rawe

Hi Perry,

I have to run off to work, so I only got to 3:26. I have a question, if you don't mind.

The interviewer objects to comments about "65 million years ago" on the basis of "it cannot be observed." My question is this: Do you think what _has_ been observed put no constraints on the years-ago-comment? In other words, do you think the comment could just as easily been "65 billion years ago..." or "65 thousand years ago..."?

Cheers,

-Randy

95

Just this simple fact of life is proof of God....

by EndofMysteries in

i'll be curious for any alternative plausible explanations for this...... .

every lifeform on earth, humans, plants, bacteria, cells, anything with life originated with other life.

all trees come from living seeds from other trees, etc.

rawe

Hi Prologos,

"We know you meant descendants, not ancestors that would be pushing the envelope to have us survive in new (not wt) worlds. If someone developed a paternity test showing that life must have had an origin beyond known chemical/environmental conditions & possibilities, would that."

Thanks! -- Yes, our "descendants", not ancestors ;-)

As I understand it evolution tends to create new species when members of species somehow get separated and subject to different environmental/selective pressures. Each child born is of course of the same species as it's parents. However, it is not an exact copy. In fact a child's DNA is 50% from the father and 50% from the mother. And because two parent forms of DNA within the father recombined when sperm was formed and likewise in the eggs inside the mother, even the 50% is not an exact match sequence-wise from each parent. Although a smaller sequence of mtDNA from inherited from the mother only is in most cases identical or near identical. If DNA transcription were perfect we would all have Eve's mtDNA so-to-speak.

Thus my four daughters are one evolutionary generation distant from me and are of course of the same species (humans). But there is no biological reason or barrier that we can detect that would suggest the parent-to-child rule about same species would need apply across more distant relatives.

One form of separation that is the most obvious is geographical. Indeed this seems to have been a big driver in terms of new species and is the reason why isolated places like Madagascar sport unique life. It is also why it would be reasonable to believe that if humans ever were to terraform Mars, eventually Martians would evolve into a new species unable to reproduce with humans from Earth.

A second form of separation is time. At first I had not considered this, but now it seems so obvious! Successful life forms tend to put a lot of energy into reproduction. If it is sexual production all sorts of mate selection schemes seems to have developed. Even to point of being ridiculous, such as how much energy and time goes into the tail feathers of a peacock. But selecting the very best mate really is that important. But... one cannot mate across time barriers. One just cannot select a mate 100 years in the past or future. Thus while the survival of a species depends on evolution not being too rapid, you wouldn't want just a couple generations of New Yorkers to be unable to mate with those from LA, it is not of ultimate importance.

Cheers,

-Randy