openminded

Joined

• started 38 topics
• posted 376 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by openminded

• 
  17

  2014

  by AvailableLight in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from addendum to crisis of conscience (1995).

  for chapter 12. available http://www.freeminds.org/history/franz_ad.htm.

  what then is the significant difference?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  1914 just does not make much sense as a benchmark for anything past 2014. Its like referencing your local grocery store to someone who needs directions by giving its proximity to the Leaning Tower of Pissa. -OM
• 
  14

  Was the F & D always a "class"?

  by openminded in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i need you guys to point me toward any proof that the wts used to beleive that the f & d was russel himself and not a group of chosen ones.

  thanks in advance -om

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  I need you guys to point me toward any proof that the WTS used to beleive that the F & D was Russel himself and not a group of chosen ones. THANKS in Advance -OM
• 
  22

  questions for my elders

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here are some questions i have prepeared for my elders if and when they deside to visit me.. anymore you can suggest?.

  questions?.

  1. gentile times.. a. why do we believe in such a thing as the gentile times?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  Alan F

  What are your top 3 questions for Jehovah witnesses?
• 
  18

  Where else are you going to go?

  by openminded in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone recomend any info or essay asnwering this question?

  friends ask me to tell them what other organization is the true religion.

  i realize its not even a very good question in the first place.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  Can anyone recomend any info or essay asnwering this question? All my J.W. friends ask me to tell them what other organization is the true religion.

  I realize its not even a very good question in the first place. If your on the train track and a train is coming, you dont need to find another set of tracks to stand on before you move, you just get off the one's you are on.
• 
  2

  untrained volunteers

  by openminded in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  could someone provide the link to where this was stated

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  openminded

  Could someone provide the link to where this was stated
• 
  3

  Here's to you Shep

  by radar in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have just had the sad task of taking my dog shep, to the vet.

  he had to be put to sleep.

  we had shep 14 yrs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  That sucks. I am sorry. -OM
• 
  60

  My JW Mothers' Words Of "Love"

  by Ranchette in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  well, i just received a letter from my mom and i dont know how to describe my feelings at this time.

  i thought id share parts of it with you and see what yall think.

  i will delete names and add my own words in parenthesis to describe whom shes talking about.. after a few lines of small talk she says this..........i do want to tell you, since (you and your husband) have rejected the truth, i am so glad (your son) is not old enough to join or be drafted into the military.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  I'd remind your mom that; she, you, and your son are all gonna end up in bodybags in time. Hopefully if everything goes okay, she will go first,then you, and then your son. Oh yea, and your all gonna pay taxes in the mean time. -OM
• 
  3

  Why does this make so much sense to me?

  by openminded in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  secular humanism: it isn't just for atheists anymore.

  dateline: june 10, 1999. this is the first-ever guest column for this site, so enjoy..... .

  so there i was, the daughter of two very devout catholics with 24 years of catholic education between them, sitting in a room full of godless secular humanists - and agreeing with nearly everything they said.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  Part 2

  Moral Affirmations

  Let's look at secular humanism for a moment. A sampling of those Affirmations I mentioned earlier includes:

  We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence
  We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
  We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
  We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and tolerance.
  We are engaged by the arts no less than the sciences.
  We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
  We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

  Whenever I see these affirmations, I can't help but notice that they are all positive statements: We are. We believe. We affirm. How very different that is from "Thou Shalt Not." What reasonable person would look at this list and say, "Hmmm, justice, reason, compassion...sounds like a bad idea." Certainly, not every individual will accept every point - that's true even among avowed humanists. In fact, that's actually one of the strengths of humanism: no one requires you, in the name of orthodoxy, to believe anything that honestly goes against your conscience.

  I should point out that these principles were formulated by people who felt themselves neither beholden to nor threatened by a deity. Some theists will argue that these statements derive from the morality of the predominantly Christian society in which authors were raised, and are therefore religious in nature. Aside from the fact that minority religions in America would find this idea deeply offensive, and also ignoring the similar principles espoused by the thriving groups of humanists in India, Norway, and all over the world, the truth is that some of these affirmations would not have come from the majority of organized religions. For example:

  We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise their reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health care, and to die with dignity.

  There it is - homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, the three biggest hot-button issues in contemporary political and religious debate. No mainstream religion I can think of would have, as a matter of doctrine, left these matters open to individual conscience. Another example:

  We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
  Isn't looking "outside nature for salvation" the primary thing which most religions concern themselves with? And even something as innoccuous as the aforementioned principle of protecting and enhancing the environment, while not much in dispute today, has not historically been a Judeo-Christian principle - quite the opposite, in fact.

  Finally:

  We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
  And therein lies the key. Moral principles do have consequences, and you don't have to believe in a deity to recognize and evaluate them. Just because you arrive at an ideal through personal empathy and compassion rather than divine decree does not make you any less moral - and many would argue that it makes you more so. Parents, do you want your children to do what's right because they agree it's right, or because you have to hassle and threaten them all the time?

  After all, how does one arrive at a decision not to kill somebody if God is saying that it's okay? Compassion, perhaps? Empathy? The realization that if an action would cause harm to oneself, it would probably cause harm to another as well? These are all valid reasons to refrain from an act, and they are generally the grounds upon which nonbelievers base their morality. While the Golden Rule of "Do unto others" may be found in both the Christian and Hebrew scriptures, as well as many other religions the world over, it is no less true in the absence of divine endorsement.

  In my humble experience, thinking people will usually do as their consciences dictate, regardless of the actual tenets of their espoused religions. I can't tell you how many theists I know who disagree with their churches on something substantive, whether it be abortion, gay marriage, the right to die, women's equality, birth control, or anything else. But generally, their consciences make reasonably good guides, and how they treat people does not differ significantly from ethical atheists I know. Conversely, I've noticed that people who lead unexamined lives and have little empathy or compassion for others will do whatever they please, regardless of the harm they do, and despite all attempts of religion and society to force them to do otherwise. In short, it is the person, and not the religion or lack thereof, which determines the moral depth of the behavior.

  Role of Religion

  One argument which I can see being raised is that some people who are troubled by addiction and other physical and emotional disorders do indeed lead very immoral, destructive existences; then one day they convert to a particular faith, and their lives are transformed. They repent and become tremendously caring, giving people, and it's all because of God.

  Well, I never claimed that theism could not make a difference in a person's life, I simply maintain that it is not a necessary factor for all people who would be moral. But let's examine the case for a moment. People who convert under such circumstances are usually quick to disclaim all credit for their good deeds and insist that without God, they would soon revert to their former, destitute selves. "Not I, but God in me," as it were. Seemingly, these people have no volition in the matter, because according to them, if given half a chance they would do precisely the opposite of what God wants them to do.

  Now, personally I'm disinclined to accept that God uses people as marrionettes in this manner, but I'll assume this model for the sake of discussion. So, if God is solely responsible for the good these individuals do, as they claim, then they must by definition be coerced, since action imposed by an outside agency without the opportunity for choice is coercion.

  The question then arises: Can these people still sin? If yes (and I don't know of any organized religion which would purport otherwise), then they must be choosing to do so, since presumably God would not be forcing a person to do something which is against God's will. And indeed, many devout believers maintain that the good they do comes from God, whereas the evil they do comes from themselves.

  But you can't have it both ways. What does it say for God's ability to coerce if you can choose to go against it any time the mood strikes you? God doesn't come across as very omnipotent in such an event. Either God is forcing your actions, in which case the responsibility for both your good and your evil deed falls to the deity; or else you have an element of choice at all times, which means you choose both to sin and to follow God's perceived promptings to compassion. For those who insist that God does not force them, but that it is only through the strength they receive from God that they even have the ability to do good, I say that it is still your choice to use that strength to do good works, rather that simply going about your business and ignoring the needs of others. If it is not compelled, it is choice - there is no third option.

  People can and do make moral choices on their own, whether they recognize it or not, whether they believe in a deity or not. Even when a principle is initially suggested by religion, it must be affirmed through human choice. Slavery, for example, is permitted in the Bible, and Paul even tells slaves to submit to their masters and not rise up against them; yet society has since decided that this is not, in fact, a moral thing, and slavery has been abolished. Not by religious or biblical decree, but by individuals coming to a collective decision about the morality of owning another human being. We do progress, however slowly. And thus though I am very much a theist, my humanism is secular, for I see no evidence in either principle or practice that one must believe in a deity to be ethical. I also see the power of human compassion in both the theist who does not kill when commanded to, and in the atheist who sacrifices generously when not commanded to. Most of all, I see the staggering potential of human choice, for it is only through our choices that we grow.

  --Bonnie Cline
• 
  3

  Why does this make so much sense to me?

  by openminded in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  secular humanism: it isn't just for atheists anymore.

  dateline: june 10, 1999. this is the first-ever guest column for this site, so enjoy..... .

  so there i was, the daughter of two very devout catholics with 24 years of catholic education between them, sitting in a room full of godless secular humanists - and agreeing with nearly everything they said.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  Secular Humanism: It isn't just for Atheists anymore

  Dateline: June 10, 1999

  This is the first-ever guest column for this site, so enjoy....

  So there I was, the daughter of two very devout Catholics with 24 years of Catholic education between them, sitting in a room full of godless secular humanists - and agreeing with nearly everything they said. How did I come to this pass? How could a die-hard theist find herself at the annual conference for the Council for Secular Humanism? Well, aside from the obvious "it was Austin's idea," I wanted to explore further the ideas of humanism in a context that was not strictly debate, such as is often the case in a chat room. I'm rather new to humanism, at least by name. In reality, though, I started identifying myself as a Humanist because of all the times I came across a copy of the Affirmations of Humanism in its various forms, and realized that I already accepted just about all of it - even the part which says that appeals to Divinity are not necessary in order to live a moral life

  Admittedly, it's a rather odd philosophical niche to occupy: a secular humanist theist (albeit a very liberal theist). Yet it's not as big a stretch as you might imagine. If you are a theist, all you have to do is ask yourself honestly:

  If God told me to kill somebody, would I do it?

  Now, this question requires a few disclaimers. First, no copping out and claiming that the God you believe in would never ask such a thing of you - this is hypothetical. Second, the person to be killed does, in fact, want to live: s/he did not request this, this is not euthanasia; nor does s/he deserve it for crimes committed. This is cold-blooded murder, with no mitigating circumstances or hidden aspects that will make it all right in the end.

  So, would you do it?

  If the answer is yes, then perhaps you won't gain much from reading further - we obviously have deep philosophical differences about the value of human life. But if the answer is no, then I submit to you that you may already have what it takes to be a secular humanist theist, even if you've never considered it before.

  If you can't bring yourself to kill someone on God's orders because you cannot get over the idea that it's wrong, then you are of necessity appealing to a higher moral standard than God's (higher in the sense that it supercedes God, the way one court is higher than another). Never mind where this sense of wrongness comes from - yourself, society, universal compassion, what have you; never mind that your moral take on the issue may actually be in error. The fact of the matter is, you are defying a direct imperative from your God by saying "I disagree."

  Plato & Kierkegaard

  This question harkens back to an old dilemma as posed by Plato. To paraphrase: Is it good because God says it is, or does God say it because it is good? Those who answer "yes" to the directive to murder fall squarely into the first category: "If God's telling me to do it, it must be okay, no matter what I personally may think of it." As for everyone else, the inescapable conclusion is that you feel there is an external moral code with which God could (theoretically) be out of alignment. Or at the very least, with which you yourself should not be out of alignment.

  Now, I've tried to be as ecumenical as possible here, but at this point I have to allow that pantheists may have trouble with this formulation, since they believe that there is nothing that is external to God. Beyond that distinction, however, the fact remains that if murdering under the circumstances I've described is wrong, and God has told you to murder, and you refuse for ethical reasons, then you must feel that the simple act of God's ordering it has not suddenly made it Good. Ergo, you feel that there is a external Good to which even God adheres to, or does not adhere to, as God chooses.

  Again, I should stress that we are not talking about Cosmic Certainties here - you could always be quite wrong in your belief that murder would still be evil even if God required it of you. The point being explored here is, what are the consequences and corollaries of the beliefs you hold, and the decisions you make, or would make?

  For those who are still clamoring that their God would never make such demands of them, I must humbly point to the example of Abraham and Isaac. When I was in college, I studied Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, in which he argues that by sacrificing Isaac, Abraham makes a leap of faith in God so profound that it's not even possible for most people, and therefore Abraham is to be praised and held in highest esteem for his decision. To his credit, Kierkegaard struggled with this issue a great deal before coming to this conclusion - which is, I'm afraid to say, a lot more thought than I gave the matter when I went along with the class and agreed that, yes, Abraham was a pretty amazing fellow.

  Quote of the week:

  No religion has ever given a picture of a deity which men could have imitated without the grossest immorality.

  George Santayana (1863--1952) Little Essays, No. 26: "Pathetic Notions of God"

  Abraham As a "Yes-Man"

  Recently, however, I had occasion to reevaluate my opinion on the issue, and I came to a very different conclusion. For Abraham is nothing less than that person who unthinkingly says "Yes, Lord" when told to murder another human being. To be sure, the Bible encourages you to overlook that fact, because the story starts out by clearly stating, "God put Abraham to the test." In a way, it's almost like a Hitchcock movie: the audience knows that it's a test, so the suspense lies in working up to that awful moment when Abraham picks up the knife. "Will he do it? Can he do it?" we ask ourselves with a mixture of horror and admiration. And sure enough, he does - he passes the test, we all sigh with relief, and Abraham gets blessed and lives happily ever after, more or less.

  But Abraham didn't know it was a test.

  We tend to forget this, but from his perspective, he was going out to kill Isaac, and tomorrow he'd have to figure out what to tell Sarah when he got back home. And without that crucial knowledge, how can we possibly feel anything but horror at what he was prepared to do? Here is a man who was prepared to murder his own child, and the Bible makes no mention of him disputing the order, or even that he felt very upset about it. Perhaps the historical Abraham would have indeed done so, but the biblical Abraham does not, and this is the example which the Bible holds up as praiseworthy.

  Think about it: Nowadays, any parent who claimed she killed her child because God told her to would be thrown into jail, or into a mental institution - the only question would be in deciding which. I challenge anybody to find one person who would hear about it and exclaim, "Wow, I wish I had that much faith!" I daresay that even if people generally accepted that the message from God was legitimate, most would more likely be appalled than admiring. People who would not kill even a stranger on God's say-so cannot fathom the sheer mindless obedience it would take to kill one's own child. I know I can't.

  A Cause for Optimism

  So many well-meaning theists are concerned that without God, or at least the fear of God's retribution, to enfore the moral order, people would simply do "whatever they felt like doing." I suggest that this may not be as bad as people think. I'm afraid I can't now locate the source, but I read recently that 30% of college-age males in a particular survey would murder if God told them to. Some might find that statistic depressing, but to me it says that fully 70%, a strong majority, would not kill if told to. And that's just among the men.

  If so many people would refuse to do something they consider wrong even when commanded by the ultimate authority in the universe, then I think that gives a powerful reason for optimism about the potential strength of human morality. No, people will not always behave perfectly, and there are certainly still some very antisocial personalities out there who cannot be relied upon to restrain themselves. But if poor, frail human beings who are supposedly sinners to the core can choose to be compassionate even when strongly motivated to do otherwise, then what might they choose when their freedom is not hampered by outside coercion?

  Don't miss the other section:

  Part 2: Moral Affirmations and Religion
• 
  19

  peacable = true religion

  by Moxy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please help me out a bit with this.. jws, as a religion, are taught to live peacably.

  they do not go to war nor will they generally support it.. now, if i were to play the role of an apologist, i think i would just keep hamering on this point.

  "catholic killing catholic and protestant killing protestant" was such a great phrase and ties in so nicely with johm 13:35. now, let me play devils advocate and hear some rebuttals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  openminded

  The Hutterian Brethren or Hutterites are a religious group originating from the Reformation of the 16th century. Their roots are found in Switzerland where a group of bible students came to the conclusions;
  That baptising babies is not biblical.
  That the Bible requires the separation of church and state.
  That a Christian should not wield the sword (pacifist)
  That the Lord's Supper is symbolic of the suffering of Jesus, and should be done in remembrance of him
  These 4 points became the basis for this movement. The followers of this movement known as the Anabaptists or rebaptisers.
  The religion of the Hutterites is unique in their belief in the community of goods in which all material things are held in common. This idea is gleaned from the teachings of Jesus, where he told the rich young Ruler what he still lacked; Luke 18, from the fact that Jesus and his disciples shared everything; John 12 , from Acts 2: 44-47 where we see that the apostles had all things common and other Scripture. Hutterites believe community of goods is the highest command of love.

  All members of the colony are provided for equally and nothing is kept for personal gain. Hutterites do not have personal bank account; rather all earnings are held communally and funding and necessities are distributed according to one's needs.

  Hutterites attend a 1/2 hour church service almost every day besides a 1 1/2 hour service every Sunday and common religious holiday. Church service consists of singing, praying and preaching of Scripture and Hutterian teachings