Posts by Retrovirus

21

Newbie to the Boards !

by TheOutSpoken1 in

jw
friends

id like to introduce my self as im new......a lil nervous but ready to have some conversation that doesnt require me to rely on old men in ny to think for me.

im tired of the puppetteering, the sly green handshakes to move up, the lies turned into new light- "what happened to yes means yes?

", just has the makings of a bad ponzi scheme in my opinion...i officially begun my fade this year.....and im enjoying it.

Retrovirus

Welcome from a non-jw

Good on you for going to college? What course are you completing?

Also suggest you check out jwfacts for an excellent summary of the religion

41

What percentage of assmbly experiences are total fabrication?

by NoRegrets in

when i was in 4th grade, i ended up in a situation involving minor school politics.

they had developed a "student council" which did little more than sell pencils at lunch time for fundraisers.

anyway, i was appointed by the teacher and didn't think much of it as an 8-9 year old.

untitled

by MissAloha in

jw
friends

i post in the wrong topic.

i am sorry!.

noob.

Retrovirus

Welcome from Australia, Newbies!

MisAloha said: You would think only kids would repeat back exactly what was in the paragraph but many do it

Indeed! It's a joke to call it "study", but my jw study conductor tried to get me to do it too. It's a worry when you're told what to ask, and how to feel about the answers, isn't it?

17

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 10-23-2011 WT Study (PURSUE PEACE)

by blondie in

jw
friends

review comments will be headed by comments.

comments.

Retrovirus

Peace at Any Price?

15. When should we report a serious sin that we

have become aware of?

15 As Christians, we are exhorted to pursue

peace. However, the Bible also states: “The

wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then

peaceable.” (Jas. 3:17) Being peaceable is

secondary to chasteness, that is, upholding

God’s clean moral standards and meeting his

righteous requirements.

Typical twisted interpretation. If being peaceable is secondary to chasteness it means personal chasteness, not sticking your nose in others' affairs and ratting them out.

41

"we don't need holidays as an excuse to give gifts to our children"

by Sour Grapes in

before my mother became a jehovah's witness i remember.

the fun of christmas and opening the beautifully wrapped.

gifts under the christmas tree.

Retrovirus

thetrueone, I agree with much of your post.

Should compassion and empathy have to be strictly held to one day a year, by a fictitious organized religious date.

Obviously not, and they obviously are not! The Christmas "extra" to the charities was in addition to regular and structured support. It was more like a gift to someone we knew. Nor do I house backpackers out of any charity; that had to do with networking and a hostel with bedbugs.

One can also see a lot of bad things such as desperation, anxiety and depression.

Are you aware of the increase in suicides at this time of year ?

Yes indeed. And I have personal experience of the strains of a dysfunctional family spending time together. Also I have two acquaintances who choose to spend the day alone, and know of their isolation and dread of the day. Neither is compelled to be alone. Again, no light without dark.

Quite frankly I would say this festivity highlights the disparity between the have and have nots

If that's what you're looking for, you can find it. But it's not how I'd describe the celebrations at the orphanages, nor the volunteer-staffed dinners for homeless people.

because of its highly commercial nature

Ah, I see a difference between commercial exploitation and "commercial nature". Other celebratory days, as well as non-celebratory occaisions are equally exploited. As for the canned carols, yes, they grate on me too!

To get back to shouting distance of the topic, I certainly give and receive presents at other times of the year. Wrapped presents on birthdays, and special occaisions. Thougtful little "finds" at any time. And Christmas is still special - but, as MrMonroe said, it can't be compulsory, nor forbidden.

41

"we don't need holidays as an excuse to give gifts to our children"

by Sour Grapes in

before my mother became a jehovah's witness i remember.

the fun of christmas and opening the beautifully wrapped.

gifts under the christmas tree.

Retrovirus

thetrueone, It's a shame you only see the "dark side" of Christmas. Every light casts a shadow, just as every cloud has a silver lining.

Growing up, we were not religious, but Christmas Eve was a great family gathering; traditional foods, house smelling of fir and candles everywhere, great heaps of presents. And Coca Cola which we never got otherwise.

I tried to maintain the spirit of celebration and warmth for my children. Not always easy, but financial planning and saving during the year prevents the stress. And it's about so much more than the presents!

Last year I had two European backpackers staying with me, so we observed the Advents together, and made the traditional cinnamon stars. And less traditional kangaroos, and koalas. Then we opened a bottle to wash down the artistic failures.

The charity we support at work gave a couple of hundred dollars to each of the African orphanages supported. The walls were covered with pictures of radiant children on their first ever jumping castle, and of the cards they made for their teachers and carers.

"Correct" date or not, that's Christmas!

PS - quite a contrast to the gloomy Awake featuring a drunken office party and explaining that the Christmas "star" had been planted by Satan.

71

Evolution Thread to continue conversation with BIOFLEX

by NewChapter in

bioflex, i am starting this thread so that the other one doesn't get hijacked.

here is where you left off.

bioflex please stop talking about evolution you are off topic and your ignorance of the subject is deeply embarassing.

Retrovirus

Thanks for your reply, Bioflex.

A lot has already been answered, but I'll put my way anyway:

But all i am asking is, do you think over enough time those not-dogs could change extensively in their body structure as to be considered as totally different animals? like maybe goats?

As I said, the name we give a type of animal, such as "dog" is arbitrary. Given enough time, changes could indeed be so great that "not-dogs" would appear to be a completely different animal. But, careful, expert examination would still show their ancestral relationship to dogs.

My problem lies in how one species can split into two or more speices on its own. I know viruses and algae can reproduce on their own but no matter how they split all the end up producing is another of their kind.

Consider the small differences you can find in any breeding population. Then if one of these differences makes the organism stronger, tougher, or able to digest better, over time the critters that carry this trait beget more offspring. Over more time, almost the whole population has this difference, so that it's no longer a "difference". Then, a refinement on the difference appears, again one that helps survival. Round 2.

Consider also that the original population may also not have survived unchanged. It is theorised that population change happens fastest when the environment changes, which would make sense.

Can you see that after hundreds of "rounds", the two populations would be substantially different? Perhaps no longer able to interbreed?

If i am correct fishes and reptiles cant interbreed so how do you prove a fish splitting to produce a reptile without these two having any kind of sexual interferance?

Again, you are asking why the two "end result" populations cannot interbreed. Isn't this exactly what the evolutionary scenario above would cause? The theory of evolution suggests that once both fish and reptiles descended from one ancestral population. These were neither modern fish nor modern reptiles. But those in deeper water evolved the differences that helped survival there, and those in the shallows benefited, from being able to, for instance, survive short times out of water, and put weight on their fins. Caedes has explained this very well.

i find it hard to accept that natural selection or speciation can link features of a girrafe from a fish. Its like saying evolution is the reason why dogs have tails like reptiles.

The postulated common ancestor of giraffes and fish is a long way back. But although they are very different, they do have some structures in common. Most notably, a backbone. They are both vertebrates. Now if you could find a mammal-like creature without a backbone, you could cast serious doubt on the theory!

Keep asking and reading, and good luck! Retro

71

Evolution Thread to continue conversation with BIOFLEX

by NewChapter in

bioflex, i am starting this thread so that the other one doesn't get hijacked.

here is where you left off.

bioflex please stop talking about evolution you are off topic and your ignorance of the subject is deeply embarassing.

Retrovirus

Hi Bioflex,

There is a recurring point in your posts that I'd like to clear up.

that is the ONLY way the process of evolution can continue - INTERBREEDING

You have stated this several times and not supported it. It is not correct. Here are a couple of considerations

1. Way down the bottom of the evolutionary tree - or shrubs - are one celled critters and viruses. No males and females. No interbreeding as you understand it, but still, DNA exchange and influencing.

2. You are correct that when two dogs mate, the offspring will be dogs. However. If a viable population of dogs were isolated in a different environment from other dogs, different climate, food, predators, the features that help their survival will become more dominant. Over hundreds of thousands of years, selection would continue to refine these features. The chromosome count could change over time, as well as scent, vocalisation etc (as NC has observed). If the isolation ended, they might look and behave so unlike dogs, that we'd call then something else (eg not-dogs, foxes, whatever). They might no longer be able to mate with dogs, let alone produce viable, fertile offspring.

They would be a new species, one which looks, sounds, different from dogs. The common heritage, however, would still be traceable. The name "dog" is an artificial designator, and might well not be applied to the not-dog.

So, evolution is not just interbreeding. It is random change and natural selection (ie those best fitted to their environment produce more offspring). And it takes a very long time.

And yes, there is very probably more to it than that. But that much has never been falsified.

Hope that help to clarify the issue. Retro

35

So-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses

by wannabefree in

with all of the legal mumbo jumbo and technicalties that the organization uses (recently brought to light in the australian case), i couldn't help but wonder what power the "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses" really has or even means from a technical standpoint, since the organization is so technical.

we know what it means when the announcement is made, but in reality, so-and-so never really belonged to any of the groups in the first place.

the law says that association or membership is voluntary, therefore the organization has the right to expel and shun someone for not following the guidelines expected of members.. what are the rank and file members of?.

Retrovirus

From Quendi's post:

I was also told that I had to be in the Kingdom Hall the night the annoucement was made as an indication that I was submitting myself to Jehovah's discipline. Failure to attend that meeting would definitely be held against me in any effort to get reinstated

Fluppin control freaks!!

16

Perpetual Cognitive Dissonance

by sabastious in

revelation 7:9nwt - after these things i saw, and, look!

a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of allnations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.. every year, as an adolescent witness, i would eagerly await the arrival of the annual "watchtower world report" issue to come out.

it had always bugged me that we were not in all the lands even though purporting to be the one and only "great crowd" decribed in the verse above.

Retrovirus

From the OP:

Likewise I felt equal discomfort in our seemingly vain efforts in India where our Witness to citizen ratio was in the millions

Teary asserts:

The discomfort felt by the poster is a classic example of ignorance with regards the actual purpose of the preaching work

So, you see no reason for discomfort with an ineffective ministry that will condemn millions to die "Soon" (if you believe that way, of course)

And that just goes along with what Teary mentioned about CD not needing to be grounded in any actual logic or facts

As I posted earlier, that's waffle, fast heading off topic.

The point is Rev 7:9 and the last sentence:

Even a small child would be able to see the contradiction of any group claiming this "title". That's how it works to be raised in the Organization. You get a case of perpetual cognitive dissonance that haunts your mind until who knows how long

It is indeed very hard to imagine any group claiming this title, especially such a very recent group.

Could your attempts to herd the discussion into off topic generalities be caused by CD?