Posts by Retrovirus

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

As for the current Governing Body members, they are "fakes."

by possible-san in

well, .... although i have stated in this forum several times, and probably also other people stated about it, i would like to say again now.. as for the current governing body members, they are the "fake anointed.".

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/notes-on-governing-body-of-jehovahs.html.

the greatest tragedy of today's jehovah's witnesses is that fakes/liars are guiding the organization.. people who have served jehovah for years should remember the "basic doctrine.".

Retrovirus

Possible-san and others,

Sorry to come onto this topic late, but could you please explain to a newbie? Are "real" anointed those who identified themselves before 1935?

Do the anointed have a rank or class in the WTS?

Retro

(For background, I'm not a JW, but have a family member who is, and who has set me up with a couple of regular JW visitors, and I'm trying to learn all I can quickly.)

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

Whereami, thanks for the material (sorry it took so long to post this).

They did give me that latest tract, the subject of the video. I missed a couple of issues they nailed, but there are others, namely

1. evolution "falls" because abiogenesis is as yet unproven (so I guess we know nowt about chemistry because it is based on atomic physics, which is based on subatomic particles and there's a lot to learn there)

2. The cell is the smallest unit of life. Completely ignores viruses. Quite a problem for designed life whether or not they are "alive", and also retrovirus sequences are a strong indicator for evolution.

I look forward to my next discussion with the JWs.

Retro

PS , Outlaw, thanks for the heads up on Debator. So far I'm more impressed my "my" JWs. . .

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

Nickolas,

Sorry I missed your post earlier, about the percentage of scientists who believe in God.

Thanks for the correction; my post was too vague.

Also found this: http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-vs-religion-what-are-scientists-religious-beliefs/

From the article:

The picture that’s emerging from Ecklund’s research shows that the reality is more complex than the simple dichotomy of science versus religion. Yes, scientists are less religious than the general population. But there are also many religious scientists

That's basically what I was trying to say, in opposition to Debator's rather black and white view.

Retro

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

Hi Debator,

your words seem to be accepting of the ridiculous claim on this forum that they are a cult when demonstrably they are not

I must respectfully ask you again - which words? Where did I say this?

Evolution is tricky... firstly because it removes itself from Abiogenesis

Evolution is a theory, not a centipede. How can it remove itself from anything? And yes, abiogenesis is another theory.

Next because in many ways it is just renaming God's incredibly designed processes and uses them as proof

No, I agree that renaming something is not proof of anything. What about some facts?

species jumping, the odds involved of chance happenings from the cellular to complex mechanisms. the unpalatability of "chaos",

Please explain what i should understand "species jumping" and "the unpalatability of 'chaos'" to mean. Also, bear in mind that the theory of evolution does not claim that speciation is random or directed by chance, but by natural selection. If you need this explained further, please let me know.

The current population of the world fitting the Bible time frame mathematically and not evolution time frame which would make us vastly unpopulated given the millions of years involved against propagation of the species

It would help if you could provide a source for this, please. Why are we vastly underpopulated?

I'll follow up on the rest later; overlong posts are too confusing.

Thanks for the discussion so far and look forward to your next post.

Retro

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

Hi Debator,

You clearly do not like Dishonesty but you accept the claims on here that Witnesses are a cult without checking?

Can you please show me what I said to make you believe I did this?

As regards to Evolution verses Creation debate, this is a difficult subject since these are extremely opposing beliefs. Where both sides may make mistakes on what the other group believe and teach. I find it particularly hard with Evolution since it is ever-changing medium according to current understandings of it's processes

That's why it's best to discuss these issues based on facts. For instance, evolution is a well-based theory, not a medium. And yes, scientific theories change over time. (As do the beliefs of all the religions I know of) That's why I personally do not "believe" a current scientific understanding, but do accept that it best describes the known facts at the present.

I am a Jehovah Witness because I found the true God's truth in Jehovah's witnesses according to his word the Bible and I reject Evolution because makes a belief out of disbelief and scepticism of the created world around us

Evolution describes how creatures can adapt and change over time under the influence of natural selection. It does not "make" anything or cause scepticism. Many scientists, I even think the majority of scientists, have personal religious beliefs.

If, however, you know of any facts that should cause me to doubt that evolution (speciation) happens, please post them and I'm happy to discuss.

Retro

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

Dear Grace (Mouthy)

Thank you for sharing your story. You've given me the strongest reasons to persist with this.

I hope you've fully recovered from your fall.

Retro

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

Hi OTWO

Please report their response when you demonstrate the dishonesty of the WT literature. They will bend over backwards to defend it, regardless of what they read in the book. Their habits of quoting sources are awful. I was showed how the WT literature quoted something that sounded scholarly that seemed to agree with them. It turned out that their quote out of context was actually the scholarly source quoting the Watchtower itself and blasting it. The quote out of context just stuck with a small part. So Watchtower literature quoted a source quoting Watchtower literature

For weeks I tried to believe the literature was just cut-n-paste from creationist sites, but now it seems more deliberate than that. Quotes out of context are everywhere. That said, the latest brochure at least quotes sources, so perhaps some of the feedback is getting through.

Their response I think was learned. First insist that there's no problem, then ask the person to contact the Watchtower themselves. I say this because my SIL also did this; that's why I was ready for it. What was great was that when I challenged them, they actually tried to do some research. This may be because we've been talking for a while now and have some mutual respect - or that may be what they want me to believe. Who knows?

Given the responses so far, I'll keep going with this.

Retro

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

Thank you everyone for your replies. Nickolas and Outlaw, especially, have me worried! I had not thought I could be in any danger but do have a few emotional scars. LeavingWT, I can see that I need to educate myself about cults, and it's already clear that beliefs have more to do with wanting to fit in, belong, believe, than with logic.

It's also true, that these nice, honest people will kepp on trying to recruit others. if they succeed these people and their families will suffer. Hadn't thought of it that way. In my area (Vic, Australia) they are active in targeting migrant minorities who may be lonely.

The picture these born-in people paint of life in the WT is a happy, close and supportive family, yet the descriptions of congregational life I read here are very different. Could it be a "gentler" version here in Oz, or is this more spin (or dissonance)?

I'm very grateful for all I learn here.

Thank, Retro

100

These are good people

by Retrovirus in

in my introductory post i told about the jws that have been visiting me at my sil's request.

at first i spoke with them for her sake, then found i liked them anyway.

what i didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution.

Retrovirus

In my introductory post I told about the JWs that have been visiting me at my SIL's request. At first I spoke with them for her sake, then found I liked them anyway. What I didn't like was the literature, especially the stuff trying to disprove evolution. When I showed them a clear example of well, carelessness at best but more likely dishonesty, they suggested I continue reading the booklet, so I quoted their scripture about not touching an unclean thing. Then they said if I had a problem I should write to the Watchtower about it, and I replied that if they were giving me the material as "the truth", they should own the problem if they couldn't support it. They said they would check, and disappeared for 2 months. I didn't expect to see them again.

This weekend they returned. They had tried to get the book in question through the library system (The neck of the giraffe), no luck, so have ordered it through Amazon. A brother in another city is helping them; apparently he has some concerns with the literature supporting reasoning with quotations. They asked my opinion about other tracts, and are going to read up about viruses (The literature was basing a case on the cell being the smallest unit of life).

They really are honest people, as I'd thought at first. But they are convinced that this research will result in me realising that their literature was right all along. They believe everything the Watchtower publishes implicitly. They are happy in that belief. The older lady has Parkinsons, and clings to her hope of being retored with a perfect body.

Am I doing the right thing in continuing with them? I know they were fine with trying to change my beliefs, but I don't have their certainty. I don't want to cause pain by winning my point.

I'd welcome your thoughts on this.

Retro