if you were a jw and are now an atheist or agnostic, what was the tipping point that made you turn to it?.
the reason i ask is i have noticed that many who leave the jw's seem to turn to atheism, versus still having some form of a faith.
have many of you given up on god first or have you had atheistic views first and then found atheism to be true.
I used to be agnostic - now I'm not so sure :)
I did go through a periiod of agnosticism but I'm probably now a lot more athiest. Mainly down to more reading and a better understanding of natural selection.
I think i've come to accept that for me agnosticism is a big lump of intelllectual dishonesty; fence sitting at its worst. It's along the lines of Pascal's wager and thst's not for me.
put aside all the stupid rules,beliefs,doctrines and practices of the jehovah's witnesses.this is one of the main reasons why i stopped attending all meetings!
boredom.
monotone speakers.
having listened to matt barrie's judicial committee i'd like ask about some of those involved.
https://jehovahswitnesstrial.wordpress.com/tag/matt-barrie/.
ron hunter - am i correct in saying that he would often chair the conventions at perth?
a perennial issue for any online forum is moderation and applying rules.
we have a set of community guidelines and posting guidelines that are intended to make clear what is and isn't acceptable but this tends to focus on the obvious standards of behavior for, well, obvious reasons.
it's easy to talk about people being aggressive or insulting etc... as those are common and clearly unwanted behaviors and the typical issue for online communities - the most likely things to come up.. does this mean that everything *not* on the list is allowed?
for a long time, i've been moving into a place of utmost hope and faith.
universal reconciliation.
as a converted jw - i began my conversion with the joy that there is a hope for something we all would love - a world where each of us sees our fellow kind as a true brother.. i don't think that's an unhealthy way to live.. but - i'm living with the effects of corruptive thinking from a 'sect' - a divisive sect and judgemental sect that has hurt my sense of self.. it's terribly painful to have completely believed one thing, and then completely believe something else.... well that's how it feels to me.. i've read of some here who were jws for years, then became devout born agains for years and now are confirmed atheists.. wow.. how do you cope with the frivolous nature of your 'beliefs' - beliefs that were 'truths' for you in their own time.. i'm struggling - anyone else?.
There's nothing wrong with altering your beliefs. Your beliefs should be dictated by the things we learn, we should always be learning therefore our understanding is going to alter as we are able to reason more based on our current knowledge and understanding.
It's those that are unwilling to change; those that are unwilling to look outside their own narrow interpretations; those that cling to beliefs like a sinking ship that I feel sorry for.
now what is your stance?
It's a question of ethics. Nobody has argued about the legal position.
If the WT obtained the copyright to COC it would be the moral equivalent of book-burning by a totalitarian regime. Spreading the information would be a moral good regardless of the law.
That is not the current position with COC. The copyright holder is in the process of making the information widely available and it is ethical to support that.
No. Complete red herring.
We live in a society where we agree to give the state a monopoly in violence. It works better than allowing everybody to murder people they find annoying.
Motive matters.
Yeah - you're right - it was never gonna be a defendable position
now what is your stance?
WBTS can't charge for stuff but they do get heavily subsidised by my taxes. I'm more than happy to help spread things under their copyright already, and oops if it means they don't get website hits, so it's just more of the same. In any case, I really don't have an issue with making something available if the sole purpose of someone obtaining rights is to suppress it.
So the copyright law only applies if we agree with the organistion the copyright belongs to? If we don't agree with them or don't like them then all bets are off?
If we take that principle a bit further and extend itt to other laws, what's acceptable? Murder, for example. Is murder ok if the murdee (new word!) is a bit of a twat? Taking the point to extremes perhaps but it is the logical conclusion.
i am sorry i haven't replied and if it seems rude.
but people keep asking me what happened and i am not sure what to say.
thanks for writing anyway.
So..............what happened?
i have a bit of a dilemma that i would welcome advice on from the forum.. a brother in my congregation is giving evidence of having woken up - his comments and talks are usually slanted towards topics discussed here.
he is a former elder and is part of a group of other former elders and ministerial servants who i regularly overhear using terms i would expect to hear from ones knowing ttat.
he is a quite an effective teacher and will probably influence some.. however, in the past he has caused lots of problems for myself and others who i like (including another poster to this site who i have identified) and continues to be someone who i dislike intensely on a personal level.. his comments have been noticed by the body of elders and he is being watched.
Not a dilemma at all - you don't seem to like him, having a shared skeptiscm is hardly likely to make you bosom budddies. let him get on with his life and you do your own thng.
Confiding in him or trying to help him is only going to cause you problems.
i wold love to see all the worlds leader proclaim "peace and security" soon, loud and clear.
that wold make all jws go totaly nuts.
they would all run around and yell "now it's coming, now it's coming!".
I remeber being at Edinburgh assembly when 1986 was declared international year of peace and security.
They could hardly contain themselves!
