Posts by cappytan

so, i'm 21 years old and currently a baptized witness, however, i'm slowly making my mind up to leave and here's why.. first, there are certain things that make no sense to me in the organization.

cappytan

Garrett: I'm still going to meetings. I'm still baptized. I'm not DA'd or DF'd. I'm a former Bethelite, Pioneer, Ministerial Servant and the son of a COBE for a neighboring congregation.

I give prayers at meetings, run microphones, give talks, been told I'm going to be recommended as Ministerial Servant come next CO visit, all that jazz.

But I'm awake to what the organization is. I'm just not ready to leave without my family. They're not awake yet. So for the time being, I am by all outward appearances a "good" witness.

Ray Franz has been demonized by this organization. But he's anything but a demon. I knew personally his uncle Fred, and I knew some of the Governing Body who were members while Ray was a member of the body. Now, when I say I "knew" them, I don't mean I hung out with them on a regular basis, but I did have close association with them on a few occasions.

I can vouch for his depictions of those brothers.

Ray's book Crisis of Conscience is not a bitter diatribe of a former member. It is a loving and humble account of his struggle with the same things you're going through - doubt, hypocrisy, and what to do about it.

Read it. Truth shouldn't be afraid of light. If Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth, then reading Ray's book won't change that. John said at 1 John 4:1: "Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." Paul said at 1 Thess. 5:21: "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine."

Again, I say, if the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses has the truth, then reading a book isn't going to change that. But, if JW's don't have the truth, then your eyes may be opened by a real search for truth.

Don't give up. Don't disassociate. But do like Paul said. "Make sure of all things."

Research, research, research all the doctrines and teachings. "...test the inspired statements..."

And you shouldn't take Apostate's words for it just as you shouldn't take any other man's word for it. You have to test things out for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

43

Are people really happy at Bethel?

by The Searcher in

if they are this happy, why do they keep taking down this video?

:).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evulyocziz8&feature=youtu.be.

cappytan

Well thanks for answering my question while pretending that it was Illuminated who first thought of it.

I don't know what question you were referring to. The only question I saw you ask was who made it and if the GB knew about it and if it was with their consent.

I still don't see where anyone truly answered that question.

On my post, I was posting speculation based off of another video.

But I still don't know the answer to that question(s) you posted above.

43

Are people really happy at Bethel?

by The Searcher in

if they are this happy, why do they keep taking down this video?

:).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evulyocziz8&feature=youtu.be.

cappytan

Interesting comment on that Happy Apostate video.

So, perhaps the Happy @ Bethel video actually was done for the International Convention. Wonder if that was the video this commenter was referring to.

41

Counting service time in a creative way

by nevaagain in

jw
friends

couting time and, how to count time while doing as little service as possible is often a hot topic around witnesses.

i even overheard pioneers discussing about it.

they call it "creative time counting" (i translated that phrase from a different language so bear with me ;-).

cappytan

We had this thing called the Pioneer Shuffle where you made a call on one side of the city, then made your second call on the opposite side of the city, then your third was back where your first call was and so forth.

You could get 4 hours in and only make 6 calls all morning. It was awesome!

70

Be nice to theists - they are victims of their genes

by cofty in

identical twin studies show there is a strong inheritable component to religiosity.

thomas bouchard studied identical and fraternal twins raised apart and tested them on religious attitudes.. the correlation for the former turned out to be 62% compared to just 2% for the latter.

his colleague.

cappytan

So when talking about "adaptation" above, we're definitely referring to physical/physiological (whichever is the proper term) adaptation and not behavior. Correct?

In that case, then yes, I agree that NOTHING adapts physically to its environment.

You can take an infinite number of dogs and place them all in the middle of the pacific ocean, thousands of miles from any land, and none of them will ever develop fins or gills before they drown. Some might get really good at swimming. But with no food, no fresh water and not being able to breathe under water, they're all shark bait.

70

Be nice to theists - they are victims of their genes

by cofty in

identical twin studies show there is a strong inheritable component to religiosity.

thomas bouchard studied identical and fraternal twins raised apart and tested them on religious attitudes.. the correlation for the former turned out to be 62% compared to just 2% for the latter.

his colleague.

cappytan

NOTHING adapts to its environment.

I haven't been in on the conversation, just clicked on it, so I hesitate to interject myself in the middle of what seems to be a lively discussion.

But I will anyways. :P

Cofty: What do you mean by "NOTHING adapts?" Do you mean physiologically? Behaviorally? I think we can all agree that organisms can and do adapt behaviorally to their environment, to a limit. However, I was also under the impression that Darwinian evolution provided for the possibility of physiological adaptations, albeit over an extended period of time.

My view of Darwinian evolution, though it may be an oversimplification, is survival of the fittest. I'm not an expert, by any means. But, I was under the impression that what was "fit" was surviving because of some kind of physiological change that gave one line of genetics an advantage over another in it's environment. Is that incorrect?

Perhaps I'm using the term adaptation incorrectly. Or maybe I'm using the term environment incorrectly. Would ecosystem be a more accurate word to use then environment?