Posts by rawe

25

should christains own cats?

by unstopableravens in

is it appropriate for a christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light?

it would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple yes or a no.

the scriptural answer of necessity must be a qualified one, and it is easy to see why.

rawe

Hi Everyone,

"since the Great Flood of Noah’s time (c2350 B.C.E.)."

That's a whoops - must add 20 and make that 2370 BCE for JWs. This happens of course due to the 607 BCE date -- i.e. push one, push all!

Cheers,

-Randy

73

this week's wt study

by thedog1 in

i conducted the wt study tonight on higher education.

i wondered what the reaction of the bros and sis would be.

there was no deviation from the idea that a university education is not a good idea.

rawe

Hi Rm1,

"From College Major to Career (sort on unemployment percent)"

PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES: 7.2%

Hey, maybe this will work out for my 3rd daughter! :D

Cheers,

-Randy

30

I regret my disassociation.

by Zoos in

jw
friends

if i knew then what i know now, i might never have disassociated myself.

i realize all i can do is speculate on what could have been.

however, when i consider the number of people i might have been able to help by dropping little thought-provoking seeds, i really regret having jumped to the decision to disassociate so quickly.. ive read the accounts of several people on this forum telling of how stressful it is to be in the position that i just described above.

rawe

Hi Everyone,

At first I felt sending a letter of disassociation is playing by their rules too, so I didn't do that. Of course after putting Christmas lights on my house 2 years after leaving I was the subject of disassocation by action. In my case I even agreed to meet with the elders who contacted me, so long as I could record the meeting and have a lawyer present. I even suggested they could make a public announcement that I was an atheist, so long as they made it clear they were not directing anyone to shun me or implying I was 'wicked' (1 Cor 5:1, 13)

Not too surprisingly, they didn't take me up on the offer.

Sending a letter of resignation to any organization is a prerogative of the individual. What Jehovah's Witnesses decide to do with that information is on them. If they choose to publically slander the individual and use their religious influence to negatively influence normal family affections, then they should not be surprised to be labelled a 'cult.'

What I do think is playing by their rules, is participating in our own shunning. That I try hard not to do, but instead interact with any family and friends who are Witnesses in a normal friendly matter. At the same time, I don't try to go out of my way to make my JW friends and family uncomfortable, knowing that much of how they act is the result of the delusional influence they're under.

Take care,

-Randy

73

this week's wt study

by thedog1 in

i conducted the wt study tonight on higher education.

i wondered what the reaction of the bros and sis would be.

there was no deviation from the idea that a university education is not a good idea.

rawe

Hi Billy,

"Higher education, with its emphasis on academic study, often produces graduates who have few or no practical skills, leaving them unprepared to deal with the realities of life."

My oldest daughter from about age 14 decided she wanted to be a registered nurse. Now at age 25, she has completed nearly two years as an R.N. The skills of this profession are a mix of class room book learning and hands on practice.

In contrast my third daughter is in her 3rd year at St. John's College, which is a Great Books college. Basically she will come out with a background in philosophy. I sometimes joke with co-workers that you know employers just can't find enough philosophers! In reality though, academic study, is often not just learning things and gaining specific knowledge, but learning how to learn and how to communicate ideas. When such material is produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, we now know how dishonest they are being. They're not concerned at all about an individuals "practical skills", but instead know higher education often develops critical thinking skills, that in turn will cause people to see issues with the faith.

Cheers,

-Randy

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"I joined this site because my family got dropped like hot potatoes after a branch of our family joined the Jehovah's Witnesses."

Do they remain Witnesses? This thread confirms what I believe is generally true. That is, few Ex-JWs become LDS members. And likewise few LDS members become Witnesses. However, it does happen. In both cases, it is a warm thought if your faith is the one that has gained the member. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "dropped like hot potatoes", but it sounds like other LDS members were wishing to blame your family for this change? In any regards, if one is involved in a life-defining faith, it can create shockwaves in a family when you leave. Unfortunately for the Witnesses, this often is translated into life-long shunning towards those who leave.

"My grandmother was terrorized by JW literature that spoke of people ceasing to exist at death. The thought of her going into the ground and fading to nothingness was repugnant to her (as it would me)."

Witnesses are fond of quoting Ezekiel 18:4 to show the soul is not immortal and can die and Ecceliastes 9:5 that the dead are unconscious. Annihilation at death is one thing the Witnesses have been consistent about, since their start as International Bible Students. It seems to have stemmed from a general dislike of the hell-fire doctrine by Charles Russell (founder of the Bible Students). In reality it is obvious that death ends animated life. Most religious thought through the ages seeks to solve this obvious fate in one way or another. For Witnesses the solution was restoration of life via ressurection.

"Once I'm dead, however, if I do become non-existent, I don't want to be resurrected."

Of course if you were non-existent, you wouldn't know ;-)

"Part of the LDS faith that appeals to me is that it is predicated on the principle that God is of such a nature that he would never put someone into the horrible situations that exist on the earth -- situations in which the rate of failure were remarkably high -- without first gaining the consent of the person being born into mortality."

Religious ideas often seek to find purpose in life, find ultimate justice and the like. "Blow a horn in Zion, O men, and shout a war cry in my holy mountain. Let all the inhabitants of the land get agitated; for the day of Jehovah is coming, for it is near!" (Joel 2:1). Language like this is common in much of the OT. When we see injustice, we want to see it dealt with. Since so many times it is not, we imagine an ultimate fix, a "day of the Lord". And of course, the greatest affront to us all, is no matter what we do, we will die. Nothing saves us from that.

"Because of our premortality, we had the choice of being born and consented to it having a fairly good idea of what we were getting in to. And succeed or fail, it was our decision. All part of free will. We had much to lose, but we also stood a lot to gain."

Pre-existence is an interesting LDS idea, that no doubt is used to make logical sense of the otherwise indifference the universe shows towards life. When a child is born into poverty and dies before the age of 5, it reeks of injustice. How can this be solved? Maybe we can imagine a poor choice made in the pre-existence. Or for Witnesses, we can reason this is "Satan's system" subject to "futility" (Romans 8:20) due to Adam and Eve's bad use of free will. Alas, the biological reasons for premature death in humans is often no different than what happens to dogs or cats, who, we would imagine, are not subject to choice and free will.

The idea of our life being a test of sorts is not unique to the LDS. The OT story of Job is of this sort. Thinking in terms of a brain evolved towards finding purpose helps make sense of why such ideas appeal to us.

"I don't trust religions run by men who aren't called and ordained by God."

Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are ordained ministers.

"No church was formed, and there weren't any biblical offices such as bishops, priests, deacons, teachers, apostles and others."

The terms "ministerial servant" and "elder" are drawn from NT Greek. Jehovah's Wtinesses sincerely believe they are following 1st century Biblical patterns in how they are organized. Even how local congregations are named, such as the naming of "Union Hills" in Phoenix, where I was an elder, reflect upon patterns of congregation naming in Revelation and Paul's NT writings.

"If no church, then no officers; if no officers, no authority; if no authority, then no revelation; and if no revelation, then no church."

This is probably more a case of semantics. Witnesses stemmed from "sincere Bible students" who have never claimed modern inspiration the likes of OT and NT Bible writers. Nonetheless, despite such seeming deference, the leaders believe they are directed by Jehovah's Holy Spirit and are his chosen channel of communication on earth today.

"Thus, while we have general authorities very much like the JW Governing Board, the difference isn't in the suits, the ages of the men, the types of offices they work in, but there is a difference in what they say and do, and the authority by which they do it."

Agreed. There are both similarities and differences. Believing Witnesses would likely say "how dare they..." in regards to the claims of made by the LDS leaders, "see, our leaders are much more humble" the would claim. Pragmatically, though, it works out to be about the same.

Cheers,

-Randy

21

GODS NAME?

by ADJUSTMENTS in

in my culture using the first name or even last name ( we use mom,dad,sir,ma'am,grandma,grandpa,auntie,uncle) of my parents or an older and respected person in my family or circle of friends it is considered downright disrespectful!!!

even when it comes to a person who is a doctor in secluar society, out of respect you would say dr. last name, not using the first name.

not sure of how your culture does things, but if its a friend or an aquatintence of the same age we typicaly can use their first name.

rawe

Hi Jgnat,

Saving Mr. Banks Trailer

What an interesting clip to put into this thread! I am looking forward to taking my daughters to see this movie, maybe over the Christmas break.

On the need for precise name usage...

"Poppins, ... never ever just Mary"

On the need to be less formal...

"Oh, 'Walt', you've got to call me 'Walt'"

On keeping promises...

"Twenty years ago I made a promise to my daughters I would make your Mary Poppins fly off the pages of your books"

On being creative with others...

"No, no, no, no... responstible is not a word"

On missing the point...

"You think Mary Poppins has come to save the children?"

On not being so serious as to miss out on life's enjoyment...

"Oh, no, I had a wager I couldn't couldn't get you on a ride. I just won twenty bucks!"

Cheers,

-Randy

24

Why Evolution Is True--something that scares me

by DS211 in

jw
friends

so im reading "why evokution is true" by coyne and the page im on is talking about darwin and natural selection:.

"but natural selection was also the part of evolutionary theory con- sidered most revolutionary in darwins time, and it is still unsettling to many.

selection is both revolutionary and disturbing for the same reason: it explains apparent design in nature by a purely materialistic process that doesnt require creation or guidance by supernatural forces.

rawe

Hi Perry,

"Get right with God through the blood of Jesus and he'll take you places and show your things you NEVER DREAMED of. He did it for me."

Respectfully, Perry, I think you're making a connection and dogmatic choice that is not really required. It is entirely possible to be both a Christian and accept the factual basis of the theory of evolution. The book that convinced me the theory of evolution is correct and fact based was Finding Darwin's God. The author is Kenneth Miller. He is both a subject matter expert (molecular biologist) and a Bible believing Christian (Roman Catholic).

Accepting the sort of arguments one finds on sites like s8int.com, puts one in the same camp as Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to science. Which in turn forces one to ask why God and Jesus, would demand that being "right with [them]" would involve he wholesale rejection of the foundational science for life on earth? Why must faith in God require us to cast doubt on the obvious insight and integrity of men like Kenneth Miller? The answer I think is likewise obvious -- it doesn't.

Another author who strikingly shows a choice between accepting science and the theory of evolution is not required is Francis Collins. He was an atheist, who later became Evangelical Christian. He is a physician-geneticist who headed the Human Genome Project. An observation and comment he made in his book The Language of God about the link between DNA and homosexuality helped me shed some of my left-over JWisms on the subject.

To be sure, many who accept the theory of evolution are also atheists, such as myself, but such does not need to imply the connection is absolute.

Cheers,

-Randy

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

rawe

Hi Jeffro,

"All of the relevant scriptures are already harmonious without relying on JW superstitions. I have already shown this in detail here, here and here."

I just re-read your 607 for Beginners having read a version of it probably a year or so ago. I assume you are the same Jeffro who edits much of the material on Wikipedia regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. In any regards, I really appreciate the effort to put forth clear and accurate information on the subject. For me, dates tied to prophetic speculation have not as much of a concern as how Jehovah's Witnesses treated the subject of evolution. Nonetheless, the JW treatment of the 607 BCE date clearly shows contempt for truth and honesty.

Again, thanks Jeffro!

Cheers,

-Randy

21

GODS NAME?

by ADJUSTMENTS in

in my culture using the first name or even last name ( we use mom,dad,sir,ma'am,grandma,grandpa,auntie,uncle) of my parents or an older and respected person in my family or circle of friends it is considered downright disrespectful!!!

even when it comes to a person who is a doctor in secluar society, out of respect you would say dr. last name, not using the first name.

not sure of how your culture does things, but if its a friend or an aquatintence of the same age we typicaly can use their first name.

rawe

Hi Tammy,

"Though El being more of a general name/title, and Jah being the name given to Moses specifically."

If you read Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 you'll notice God is called "God." Then at 2:4, you see the switch to "Jehovah." Many scholars believe this is an indication of what they call the documentary hypothesis, wherein Bible material written by different sources were eventually combined and redacted.

At the last Chandler Ex-JW meetup one individual who has read a great deal about this pointed out that Israel, which literally means "contend with God", may in fact reflect a triad of three ancient Gods.

Is - for Isis (Goddess of Motherhood)

Ra - for Ra (Sun God)

El - for El (Father of Humankind)

Don't know how credible this is or not, but found it interesting.

Cheers,

-Randy

24

Why Evolution Is True--something that scares me

by DS211 in

jw
friends

so im reading "why evokution is true" by coyne and the page im on is talking about darwin and natural selection:.

"but natural selection was also the part of evolutionary theory con- sidered most revolutionary in darwins time, and it is still unsettling to many.

selection is both revolutionary and disturbing for the same reason: it explains apparent design in nature by a purely materialistic process that doesnt require creation or guidance by supernatural forces.

rawe

Hi Perry,

"But seriously there are mountains of evidence to blast holes through the standard evolutionary naturalistic worldview paradign."

I had never heard of the s8int.com site before. So I pulled it up and picked one of the subjects that looked interesting. One headline was this:

Why Contemporaneous Man and Dinosaur Matters

Beside the old photo the site said this: This apparent Plesiosaur specimen washed ashore in Monterey Bay, California in 1925. It sported a twenty foot or so long neck and some witnesses described a number of legs on the creature. Are Plesiosaurs still living in the Pacific Ocean?

and then gave the reader these three options for a conclusion...

Within the man/dino controversy there exists at least three distinct groups;1)Creationists who (for religious reasons- Christianity) would like proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed because it would support the Biblical view of creation,2)Scientists, who (for religious reasons: Evolution) do not want to see any proof of man/dinosaur coexistence because it would do radical damage to the theory and 3)Objective scientists who for scientific reasons want to know what the facts actually are.

Hopefully you can easily spot the problem here, right? The theory of evolution is about how life forms change over time in response to selective pressures. Darwin's book is entitled On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. The theory of evolution would not suffer "radical damage" if man and dinosaur coexisted. In general it hasn't worked out that way, but there is nothing within the framework of the theory that would preclude such a possibility. As per Wikipedia, homo habilis takes us back about 2.3 million years. Compared to dinosaurs which run from 231.4 to 66 million years ago (again from Wikipedia). So, with a gap of some 63 million years there is no overlap.

However, some animals closely related to dinosaurs have survived to our age. The crocodile is a good example as are several different type of birds. Given that modern crocodiles are little changed since the period of the dinosaurs some might say (speaking casually) that man and dinosaur do overlap even now.

What though about this odd monster? Many hold the view that an asteroid impact likely led to the extinction of dinosaurs 66 million years ago. This changed the selective pressures in the environment that in turn led to the rise of the mammals and eventually us. It would not be inconcievable that some ancient life that lives in the deep ocean may not have been suffered the same fate as their land dwelling bretheren. In fact, this may have been why crocodiles survived the extinction event of 66 million years ago.

However, what I found most disturbing about the s8int.com site is the fact that it uses: http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/moore.htm for the quotes, but then does not quote the authors conclusions on the matter. Here they are...

Berardius bairdi are the largest of the beaked whales, reaching a length of over 40 feet, though typically are smaller. They are in the family Ziphiidae, or beaked whales, and are in the Cetacean order. Listed as non-threatened, they inhabit deep waters (over 3,300 ft.) of the North Pacific Ocean.

Physically, Baird's beaked whale has a distinctively narrow beak, with the lower jaw extending beyond the upper. A pair of large teeth protrudes at the tip of the lower jaw, and behind these is a pair of smaller teeth. Female whales are generally larger than males and lighter in color, but have smaller teeth. Interestingly, adult males are commonly marked with scars, caused by their own species, suggesting that there is much rivalry and competition for leadership of groups of breeding females. The normal social unit is a group of 6 to 30, led by a dominant male. The whales mate in midsummer, and gestation lasts for 10 months, sometimes longer.

This species of whale holds to a strange migration pattern. The opposite of normal whale migration, they spend the summer in warm waters to the south of their range off California and Japan, then move northwards in winter to the cooler waters of the Bering Sea and similar areas. These movements could possibly be connected with the local abundance of food supplies. Deep divers, Baird's beaked whales feed on squid, fish, octopus, lobster, crabs and other invertebrates.

One explanation against the theory that the Moore's Beach Monster was a Baird's beaked whale is the idea that they don't come as far south as the central coast of California. This is false. Though rarely seen, they are a highlight of whale watchers. To rest the issue, the first head photograph above was, in fact, taken in Monterey Bay. Other evidence, however, does present roadblocks to the Baird's explanation, as we shall now analyze.

Cheers,

-Randy