Posts by ExBethelitenowPIMA

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

I do not refute the claim about DNA common ancestors so why discuss that? My entire point is that could be the case with chance or design. This is my point, why is there any dispute about this?

I am at the end after all that where I feel I do have freedom of thought and cognitive dissonance does not apply to me because my conclusion is that neither chance or design at the very start can be proven. I’m not on either side, so I can’t be accused of ignoring one side in favour of the other.

If you put yourself into one of those two boxes then cognitive dissonance definitely applies. You read books that support your belief system and ignore or overlook what goes against you

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

cofty4 minutes ago

Go back and read my original offer and stop lying

Cofty I am not lying I’m just not interested in talking about what you want to talk about I think it has zero relevance to proving chance or design theory.

You are obviously not wanting to talk about this and I don’t want to talk about what you keep talking for reasons I have made clear, it makes no difference either way. Zero relevance either way.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

TonusOH3 hours ago

Big Dog: The lawlessness that often accompanies a breakdown in social order can certainly make one wonder if humans are truly moral creatures.

That's an interesting point. Experience tells us that a surprising number of people will put aside their morals when faced with an opportunity to do so in apparent safety. This is especially true if the opportunity allows them some kind of moral 'wiggle room' (such as harming someone who is "deserving"). Our morality is almost never a black/white construct- it is wrapped in layers of understanding“

Tonus and Bigdog your posts really got me thinking. In fact I can’t stop thinking about your points you made there.

If you once believed in intelligent design as the origin of everything then go over to believe chance as the origin then who is to say what is right and wrong?

After all we are just the same as the animals we evolved from and they think nothing of morality- murder, rape and torture for fun.

If it all began by chance and there is no purpose or meaning it was all just an accident blind chance that we are here then why bother to do what is right? Why not be like the animal kingdom that we evolved from?

This is where I find it hard to believe in the chance theory as the origin of everything because humans are distinctly different from animals and we have a conscience.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

With all due respect Cofty I can see you want to talk about something else entirely, I can see this by your post here -“ Calling evolution by natural selection 'chance theory'”

So do you admit that it is possible to believe in evolution through natural selection and intelligent design at the same time? Is that what you are agreeing with? If not what do you mean?

I have said many times that evolution theory or DNA coming from common ancestry may well have some truth to it but that doesn’t answer the question about which box you are in 1. Chance or 2. Design responsible for the absolute origin of everything.

You don’t seem to want to talk about what this thread is all about and that’s fine with me. I don’t try to refute your argument about DNA it may well have some truth to it, or maybe not. But it doesn’t matter either way to what this thread is all about.

I still maintain this statement chance or design can’t be proven and if you agree with this statement then you are also agnostic by true definition

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

Why is pathetic if you sounded like you had some new proof?

I said yes please when you sounded like you had something interesting and new to share to do with what we were talking about the origin of everything?

But then your next post you said as long as it’s not to do with the origin of everything? Well that is pathetic.

very good attempt to derail the discussion Cofty but your attempt to take it over to a different track failed.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

Thank you Cofty but in that case I don’t think there is a need to. I personally don’t refute the claim that DNA proves common ancestry. Although some refute and debunk at least part of it.

I take the view that this is not important, it may be true or there may be more to it but what has that got to do with the origin of the universe?

As I’ve said to you before when we talked about the origin of the everything, You are talking about something else entirely. There are some professors we have talked about before who don’t refute DNA proves common ancestry but still believe in intelligent design at the very start. This is the question that really matters.

So if anyone else wants to refute the DNA thing go ahead I’m quite happy to accept it. But I don’t see it has anything to do with which of the two boxes every belief system has to fit into. The origin of everything was it box 1. Chance or box 2. Design.

Every belief system has to fit into one of these boxes or you are like me you admit we just don’t know.

124

JWLITE

by Teddnzo in

jw
friends

even elders can be part of the new jw lite brigade these days.

they don’t need to go on door to door anymore and there is no requirement for anything really.. taking meeting parts is all dead easy you could turn up on the day with zero preparation because it’s all in the meeting workbook.. quarterly elders meetings are just old men having a good old natter just like old men do down the pub.. congregations could be likened to pubs or bars these days just without the drinks, those come at other times.. no need for territory maps, these almost went away with covid letter writing now they are extremely slow getting finished as those who still go door to door only do ten mins.. you could even voice your questions these days about things the gb say and then just say “we can’t be dogmatic we just don’t know”.

i predict they will say this about 1914 soon..

ExBethelitenowPIMA

Nico “I'd like to see this new direction spelled out in print in a publicly available publication.”

I can assure you this is what the Watchtower said P5 last Sunday. My jaw was on the floor.

P5 said “teenager I started to doubt my parents were teaching me the true religion and that the Bible was inspired by God”

They really are talking about this openly. And the answer is calm discussions in the congregation.

Please don’t take my word for it confirm it for yourself. This is also a significant change. It’s almost encouraging especially young ones to come forward and admit they don’t believe it. Then calmly taking about it which could take years even decades I suppose.

but the point is everyone is starting to talk about the fact that it may not be true which is very encouraging. 😀

124

JWLITE

by Teddnzo in

jw
friends

even elders can be part of the new jw lite brigade these days.

they don’t need to go on door to door anymore and there is no requirement for anything really.. taking meeting parts is all dead easy you could turn up on the day with zero preparation because it’s all in the meeting workbook.. quarterly elders meetings are just old men having a good old natter just like old men do down the pub.. congregations could be likened to pubs or bars these days just without the drinks, those come at other times.. no need for territory maps, these almost went away with covid letter writing now they are extremely slow getting finished as those who still go door to door only do ten mins.. you could even voice your questions these days about things the gb say and then just say “we can’t be dogmatic we just don’t know”.

i predict they will say this about 1914 soon..

ExBethelitenowPIMA

PetrW I absolutely love your post. Of course it will never happen like that but what is happening is a slow indirect change saying ‘about 1914’ when they never said that before.

Could anyone count the times this fraise was used at the AGM “we can’t be dogmatic we just don’t know” by all members of the GB.

This is a significant change and will apply to oll the old doctrine made up by now dead people. This new GB have inherited old doctrine that is long out of date.

I can see this new JWLITE really being appealing with all things slowly becoming “we just don’t know”

this appeals to me and is the conclusion I have come to about the really big questions like how did the universe originate?

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

Yes please

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

Cofty you and I both know that cognitive dissonance means you are closed minded. Both creationism and evolution both say please read these books. Yes I agree you should read both sides.

and there are only two side Cofty. It’s either chance theory or intelligence but I know you don’t like the fact there are only two options at the very origin.

If you are coming round to the idea of intelligence being involved that’s really great. But the very origin can only be chance or intelligence it has to be either of those.