i opened my fb mail, and this is what i found:.
jeff - wow - such cynicism!
am ex jw too - 45 years - been free 12 years now.
I find a lot of religious people see agnostics/atheists as cynics, as well as anyone who does not agree with their set of beliefs. When one JW found out that I no longer shared JW beliefs, he mentioned that I was a cynic.
I think many confuse skepticism with cynicism. Skepticism is asking questions and using critical thinking. Cynicism is general pessimism and negativity. There's a difference.
is there really a god?
is there really a divine creator or did the universe around us just "evolve?
" what an incredible thought to even imagine that there could be a supernatural being so powerful as to create a universe.
Could everything have just happened? Creationists love to point out the improbability of everything, without acknowledging the possibility. Such as, among the billions of planets in our galaxy, it is possible that at least one could have the ideal properties to produce life.
Does God exist? We have no way of knowing for sure of an 'mechanic' God. The common argument is that there appears to be beautiful 'order' and 'design' to everything. But that says more about our perspective than reality. Long ago ancient people blamed the gods for the weather and rock formations, but now we know that natural processes cause these things. Likewise, many today see the complexity of nature as God's order, but science can explain this complexity (evolution, which is well proven).
So does God exist? Well, depends on our definition of God. Who's to say that God is our general conception of God? Most westerners equate God with the bronze age deity of the Old Testament. Such a God would be a simplistic reduction, in my view.
Carl Jung often talked about God as our consciousness. Somewhere in our evolution we developed this awareness, could this be God? Fundamentalists may believe that this takes away from the idea of God, because it is not some anthropomorphic external daddy in the sky. I think quite the opposite, it gives us a more mature conception of God. A God that evolves. And God does evolve. We can even see this in the Bible, between the Old and New Testaments.
this question became an off-topic sidetrack in another thread.
i thought it might be worth some debate so posted here .
the debate is basically between mainstream geological understanding of the earth's history and "young earth creationism" in particular with how the evidence relates to the occurrence of a global flood in the recent past.. a couple of points from the yec website www.icr.org are raised as examples in order to kick things off .
Reading the thread again, I see sizemlk covered some of the same ground I did concerning species, etc. Sorry for any retread.
this question became an off-topic sidetrack in another thread.
i thought it might be worth some debate so posted here .
the debate is basically between mainstream geological understanding of the earth's history and "young earth creationism" in particular with how the evidence relates to the occurrence of a global flood in the recent past.. a couple of points from the yec website www.icr.org are raised as examples in order to kick things off .
A global flood defies science. This story was my first step away from bible literalism.
Beyond the geological implications, the diversity of life that we now have could have not came from the small sampling brought onto the ark.
Interestingly enough, most people who believe in a global flood fervently disbelieve evolution. Yet extremely fast evolution could be the only possible way such a diversity of life could develop. We're talking much quicker evolution than biologists propose.
Here's a short article that goes into detail, from someone with far more scientific knowledge than I:
http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm
As ProdigalSon pointed out there were many other myths about a global flood. And as others pointed out there was possibly a local flood. What I find likely is that there was a disastrous local flood, possibly more than one in different areas. Through oral tradition these cultures embellished and mythologized it.
Nicolaou made an insightful point on faith being a hinderance to understanding. I learned this firsthand while discussing evolution with my dad. No matter how much convincing evidence I presented to him, he threw out or distorted anything that conflicted with his worldview. I realized that while religious people consider their faith a virtue, in reality it often hinders their reasoning.
when i was growing up most of the jws around me were poor and lower middle class.
some were middle class, but very few were upper middle class.
only (maybe) about 1% were college educated.
Education encourages learning. But a bigger factor is independent thinking. For instance, did someone just go to college with the single goal of attaining a job? Was it mainly just business classes, technical classes and the essentials (math, english, etc.)? Or did they also take philosophy, logic or other classes that encouraged them to be critical and question things?
Also, I find with those who leave or resist witness indoctrination, it seems more of a matter of temperament than formal education. Those that resist tend to be independent types who question authority and don't conform easily. A little healthy rebellion never hurt.
As far as financially stable, from my experience that never mattered much. Sure, many JWS are lower middle class to poverty level. But like most here I've known quite a few that are very wealthy. And I never found financial status a reliable measure of intelligence or emotional well being.
I also agree with the posts above that many people join during difficult times in their lives.
it was a beautiful, sunny day.
i was in the supermarket doing an early morning shop when i see an old friend of the family, a jw sister.. she asked me if i'd gone to the memorial and i told her no.
she said that the end is so close what with all the earthquakes and brother truthseeker, you need to come back to jehovah otherwise you will die and so will your children.
I don't care about what Russell may have taught when he was alive, for Jehovah's Witnesses have since moved on past many of the things that Russell believed when he was alive, things which he might have difficulty accepting at first, but even he would have to abandon what things Jehovah has revealed through his visible organization.
You want to be frozen in time, fine, but Jehovah's Witnesses are not static, but are members of a progressive organization
This is a copout. JWs call their religion 'The Truth'. With that designation comes some expectation of consistency. Not static rigidity, but consistency. Since it's inception the JW organization has altered it's eschatology numerous times. It has even altered it's definition of 'generation' to one that does not resemble any found in standard definitions. That's not progress, but rhetorical dodging.
'New light' is simply a way for the organization to form new narratives when the old ones are no longer feasible. Calling this 'The Truth' would make the most jaded postmodern relativist chuckle in amusement.
it was a beautiful, sunny day.
i was in the supermarket doing an early morning shop when i see an old friend of the family, a jw sister.. she asked me if i'd gone to the memorial and i told her no.
she said that the end is so close what with all the earthquakes and brother truthseeker, you need to come back to jehovah otherwise you will die and so will your children.
Back to the opening post, this idea of God was the crux of the issue when I ultimately decided not to get baptized and leave. Any creator that would destroy people, including children, for not worshipping a certain way is not worthy of worship. Plain and simple. For all of their criticism of 'worldly' governments, even most leaders in democratized countries are kinder to their citizens then this God who gives humans free will, only to strip it away along with their life.
campaign promise fulfilled.. i just love the way obama pronounces pakistan: (pahk-ee-stohn).. syl.
i greatly enjoyed this book - which as the cover tells you, is not for minors!
robert crumb ( "keep on trucking", etc) illustrated it - so the women reflect his famous style of big, thick legged , strong-looking females with firm breasts and big booties.. beyond those amusements, it's really very interesting to read genesis this way.
you start to see the patriarchs as similar to arab tribes or even afghani types - severely traditional, horny and no one to mess with.
I quit, that documentary is one of my favorite movies. For all of his quirkiness, Robert comes off as the most 'well adjusted' in the family. His brothers, particularly Charles, are some of the most haunting individuals I've seen in a documentary.
does anybody remeber any distrubing cartoon as children.
i remeber ren and stimpy from the early 90's.. .
http://youtu.be/pxe2cbd-jwe.
Ren & Stimpy was classic. Especially when Ren went psycho.
