Posts by Saethydd

16

At what point were you taught about disfellowshipping? What page in the current study book is it covered?

by jambon1 in

jw
friends

even thinking about born-ins here.

at what stage of your 'bible teaching' were you taught about the practice of disfellowshipping?.

reading john cedars book and the section about when the more crazy shit gets introduced to you is very telling.

Saethydd

Born-in here, hmm I was in a fairly small congregation but I think my first experience with being told not to talk to someone because they were disfellowshipped was when I was around 9 or 10 with a young woman in her late teens or early 20s who got reinstated years later. Later her brother also got disfellowshipped and reinstated a year later, oddly enough that man was on the judicial committee that disfellowshipped me.

20

Feeling the Guilt

by Saethydd in

i'm currently disfellowshipped and living at home with my parents, but because they are both still devout jws i have to keep going to the meetings and crap because i don't want to risk getting thrown out until i finish college or find a job that will let me support myself and go to college.. yesterday, my mother rode with me to the meeting and told me how much my best friend and my oldest sister are missing me, and it just tears me apart because during the meeting i was practically counting the minutes till it was over.

it didn't help matters that i had to sit with my family because the library was closed off, thus forcing me to follow along with the meeting on my tablet instead of reading something useful or interesting like i normally do.. when i got home i just cried out in frustration because it feels like no matter what i do, i am making the wrong choice.

either i have to keep pretending to support an organization that has caused so much pain to so many people, or i have to abandon my family and friends to it so i can save myself.

Saethydd

I'm currently disfellowshipped and living at home with my parents, but because they are both still devout JWs I have to keep going to the meetings and crap because I don't want to risk getting thrown out until I finish college or find a job that will let me support myself and go to college.

Yesterday, my mother rode with me to the meeting and told me how much my best friend and my oldest sister are missing me, and it just tears me apart because during the meeting I was practically counting the minutes till it was over. It didn't help matters that I had to sit with my family because the library was closed off, thus forcing me to follow along with the meeting on my tablet instead of reading something useful or interesting like I normally do.

When I got home I just cried out in frustration because it feels like no matter what I do, I am making the wrong choice. Either I have to keep pretending to support an organization that has caused so much pain to so many people, or I have to abandon my family and friends to it so I can save myself. I can't even just wait till I get reinstated and approach each of them to try and convince them either because it is highly probable that whoever I approach will tell the elders and I'll be back out of the congregation before I can sneeze.

Every path seems to end with someone's misery.

50

Pharaoh tries to kill all male babies - later Moses orders the very same thing!

by George One Time in

so many things that i just discoved about the bible.. .

so from the book my book of bible stories, we all know how little moses was saved from a cruel pharaoh.

of course the king of egypt was afraid that those cute little babies would endanger his empire eventually.

Saethydd

Well, the woman in question would have been Pharoah's daughter. Now I'm not sure if manicures were a thing back then, but if anybody would have had one, it would have been her.

12

My letter to the Australian Royal Commission regarding case study #29 Jehovah's Witnesses

by EdenOne in

someone suggested i would address a letter not only to mr. angus stewart, but also to the royal commission as well.

it merges the two subjects on the same letter (inactive status and shunning; two witness rule), and adds some things more that what i said to mr. stewart.

it's a bit long, please bear with me.. --------------------------------------- .

Saethydd

Very powerful letter, I did however notice a few typos so I would recommend having it proofread before you send it off, and wherever possible cite sources (such as the elders handbook). It will appear more reliable as a source of information.

31

I wrote to Mr. Angus Stewart regarding the "inactive" status claims made by the Watchtower at the ARC

by EdenOne in

this is the email i have just sent to mr. stewart angus, who has been conducting the questioning of the jw leaders during the australian royal commission dealing with child abuse cases among the jehovah's witnesses, concerning the claims made that a jehovah witness who wishes to walk away from the organization can simply become inactive and avoid being shunned:.

dear mr. angus stewart,

i have followed with interest the videos of the arc regarding the jehovah's witnesses in australia.

Saethydd

You might also mention the way parents will be threatened with loss of privileges in the congregation (being deleted as an elder or losing pioneer status) if they allow an adult child to continue living with them who has decided they no longer wish t attend meetings.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

You are talking about scientific falseability about some metaphysical entity.
Well there's a way to test the causation of consciousness.
When we reach the exascale computing we will have, in theory, the same capacity of the brain (this exascale is predicted to be reached between 2025 and 2040).
Combining the exascale computing with the brain simulation in the ongoing Blue Brain Project, we can try to run a virtual brain and see if a consciousness (strong artificial intelligence capable to pass the Turing test) emerges from it.
This would be the ultimate experiment.
I bet a consciousness will not arise. But I'm not sure about the birth of Skynet. Lol

Well, I guess if an AI ever does develop consciousness it would settle the debate, though I'm sure theists would still find a way to argue against it. That is if the AI doesn't wipe us all out.

In the meantime, though, it just doesn't make sense to me to say that the scientific method is unable to explain something which can't even be demonstrated to exist. Maybe the scientific method isn't the problem, maybe the thing in question simply doesn't exist at all, and that is why it can't be studied scientifically.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

Physical = material + immaterial.
Spiritual is immaterial too but is not physical it's metaphysical.

Okay, so as I said earlier, we have been using different definitions for the word physical. So correct me if I have this wrong. The physical and spiritual world would have to be connected by immaterial means?

Energy is immaterial.

The scientific method can be used to study energy.

Therefore, it might be possible that the scientific method could, at some point in the future, be used to study this immaterial connection between the physical and spiritual/non-physical, if such a connection exists at all.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

No, I do understand the scientific method. The issue here seems to be that either we have different definitions of "physical," or you don't understand energy. I would define physical as anything which exists materially. Energy is immaterial, therefore not physical.
You have no idea what scientific method is. You can cry a river but energy is physical.
My God this is basic science...

I'm using the second definition of physical found here.

Material means made up of matter.

Matter and energy are not the same, the following article by a theoretical physicist discusses that very subject. I'll sum it up, matter (physical objects) have energy, but energy is not a physical object.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Perhaps this is making my argument too semantic, but still, the scientific method CAN be applied even to things that can't be directly observed.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

What you mean by objective?

I literally defined the word immediately after I said it. I will reword it.

Objective knowledge: knowledge which can be applied or obtained by anyone regardless of their beliefs.

So you don't understand the scientific method. The scientific method is only applicable to the physical world.
...
Energy is physical.

No, I do understand the scientific method. The issue here seems to be that either we have different definitions of "physical," or you don't understand energy. I would define physical as anything which exists materially. Energy is immaterial, therefore not physical.

Energy, however, does affect the material world in observable and measurable ways, which is why I can believe in it. In fact, if a deity or any other spiritual being did exist, I would expect them to exist as beings of pure energy, but to my knowledge, no verified or repeatable observation of such a being exists. Neither does there exist any theory for how pure energy could manifest itself as an intelligent entity. With that being the case I remain skeptical of any supposed knowledge about spirit creatures.

Now perhaps I am wrong about this, but if spiritual beings have any impact at all on us physical beings then it seems like there should be some evidence of how they can do that.

How do you scientifically measure the potential of an idea before it's execution? Even dreams have an impact on the physical world.

I don't know... yet. The scientific method has been applied to learn more about the nature of both thoughts and dreams than anyone would have thought possible 500 years ago, so who is to say that it won't one day be capable of that.

I have enjoyed our debate, I believe that debate has value in its ability to make one think and refine their own ideas. I will do my best to examine your arguments, but as things stand now I still see no way for metaphysics or philosophy to prove the existence of a soul, creator, or life after death. I believe that philosophy and metaphysics are tools for introspection, therefore they will only tell you more about who you are as a person, not about the nature of the Universe.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

The very scientific method is supposed to be only applied to the physical world, just like an ordinary tool (hammer or screwdriver). I don't know if you're aware of that but you're applying a strange metaphysical interpretation upon science. You say science is the only way to get knowledge and scientific method is applicable to metaphysics. Nowhere in science there are such statements.

Well, I'm saying that science is the only way to get knowledge that is objective. (won't change depending on who seeks the knowledge) Thus making the scientific method, the only way, that I know of, for an individual to determine the accuracy of a claim. Additionally, I would argue your assertion that the scientific method can only be applied to the physical world is flawed. After all the scientific method is simply a question to which someone applies systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation and then formulates, tests, and modifies a hypothesis to that question. In principle, the scientific method can be applied to study things that aren't directly perceivable, energy for example. I will grant that the scientific method is better with some subjects than it is with other subjects, and there are some questions it can't answer, but anything that has an impact on the physical world can be measured, and directly or indirectly observed.

In fact you are following a philosophical system called positivism. Idk if you're aware of that or if you don't know what the scientific method is or what metaphysics is. Probably you're just a blind follower of positivism (lately it's spreading like a plague).

I'm aware what positivism is, and I gladly support it because the "mission statement" of logical positivism is to prevent the confusion caused by unclear language and unverifiable claims, both of which are ideals I agree with completely.

The scientific method is a philosophical system and metaphysics is also. Everything I said is subject to philosophical study since the dawn of man. And the test of it is time. Nature itself "hates" waste. If something is not true it will never last too much time. My view is standing for thousands years throughout many civilizations. Your view is just a little shadow in the stream of time. No matter how hard you try you simply can't change this fact.

You are right, metaphysics is older than the scientific method, however, the scientific method in its relatively brief period of existence has provided a large body of useful, objective, and verifiable information. Making it, in my opinion, the more valuable "tool" for attaining knowledge on which to base my actions and beliefs. In the same way that a jet is superior for traveling long distances, as opposed to a unicycle.

Giving a more direct answer to your question I get my information through philosophical inquiry and through metaphysical revelation (both public and private) brought by non human beings (human souls can't do that without special permission) and through the test of time/history.

So nothing that anyone else could double-check to make sure you aren't just delusional or suffering from a severe confirmation bias? Yeah, that seems like a great way to acquire knowledge that you can trust.