Posts by Anders Andersen

234

New ANTI-GAY video for Kids on jw.org

by ttdtt in

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/children/become-jehovahs-friend/videos/one-man-one-woman-marriage/.

disgusting!.

Anders Andersen

Today I regret that I have not actively told my coworkers I left this cult a little less than a year ago.

They probably assume I agree with the message in the video. Well, to be fair, I did for decades. Karma is a bitch :-p

234

New ANTI-GAY video for Kids on jw.org

by ttdtt in

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/children/become-jehovahs-friend/videos/one-man-one-woman-marriage/.

disgusting!.

Anders Andersen

The LGBT community in my country is outraged, and they are on every national news outlet. Yeah.

At national Dutch radio they just mentioned this in the news summary, included an audio fragment from the video.

http://www.coc.nl/geloof-cultuur/harteloos-en-schadelijk-kinderfilmpje-van-jehovas-getuigen

15

Old books!

by arwen in

jw
friends

found some old books of my ex.

any suggestions??

is it worth ebay?

Awake no.3 praises Dr. Semmelweiss for discovering disease-causing germs

by Anders Andersen in

in awake!

3 2016, an article on dr. semmelweis states:.

semmelweis was eventually recognized as one of the fathers of the modern antiseptic technique.

Anders Andersen

In Awake! no. 3 2016, an article on Dr. Semmelweis states:

Semmelweis was eventually recognized as one of the fathers of the modern antiseptic technique. His work helped to establish that microscopic matter can cause disease. He is part of the history of the germ theory of disease, which has been called “the single most important contribution to medical science and practice.” Interestingly, over 3,000 years earlier, the Mosaic Law, which was later included in the Bible, had already provided sound guidance on the proper handling of corpses.

So, due credits to Dr. Semmelweis for playing a very important role in finding out about the germ theory of disease.
Credits also to the Bronze Age guys who realized dead bodies can make you sick.

Not so much credit to Jehovah's Witnesses though.

3000 years ago, Bronze Age dudes say: "touching dead bodies can make you sick"
1846, Semmelweis is laying the foundation for germ theory of disease.
1931, Golden Age states in an article 'Germs - The Modern Superstition':
"Germ theory has never been proven. And it cannot be proven either. [..]
Germs do not cause disease as the most of you people have been led to believe."

http://wtarchive.svhelden.info/archive/en/GoldenAge/g1931.pdf p.404

Yes, Golden Age, always brimful of sound advice and sane ideas

Awake! no.3 also states:

Unfortunately, the importance of his [Semmelweis's] findings was not recognized until some years later. In the meantime, countless lives that could have been saved were tragically lost.

One could wonder what Jehovah's Witnesses contributed.
Did they help save lives? Or did they spread dangerous ignorance?

As per their own admission, at least one of their more important figures ended up in jail for practising medicine without a license:

From another 1931 Golden Age article, written by a chiropractor as well, it becomes clear that at that time in history, chiropractors rejected modern medicine, and claimed any disease could be solved by their methods. No wonder they were thrown in jail.

But even if their methods were far superior, true Christians wouldn't break the law by illegally practising medicine, would they?

Anyway, reading through 1931 Golden Age issues, the most ridiculous ideas with regards to your health pop up.

Lesson learned?
Don't trust Jehovah's Witness religion with your health!

9

When you were really "in", did you have a pet idea that would steer wt into divine favor?

by prologos in

wt writers ( klein) admitted at one time, that his majesty's doctrinal ship was zigzagging to find the right course, and many of us believed, that if we accepted the bible as true, cleaning up the teachings would establish the right bearing.

so: did you have a hobby-horse idea you were riding?

writing to brooklyn perhaps?

Anders Andersen

With regards for my lost child: I know about the mechanics. I now also know that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs are miscarried, most of them without the woman even knowing they were (about to be) pregnant. 'Fortunately' for us our miscarriage was very early in the pregnancy, however as it was our first we were very happy and in anticipation of the joy ahead. Regardless we would welcome a 're-implant' or ressurection or whatever. Again: as many opinions as people believing that 'extended talking snake tale' (lol @ that)

@elbib,
What they said about the blind man refusing operation can be understood as:

We (the JW leaders) are medical staff and know best. Your are (spiritually) blind. Obey us. Trust us. Don't ask questions. You have nothing to lose, because if we're wrong everyone is wrong, and you're blind anyway.

It's a false dichotomy, and I think it's more haughty and condescending than profound ;-)

5

Top Five Misconceptions about Evolution

by cofty in

very handy little article that might clear up some muddle...

Anders Andersen

I understand and accept all the facts that prove the evolution worthy of being called a scientific theory.
But I find the infogram somewhat confusing. If I weren't on board yet, it wouldn't help me at all I think.

Sorry :-p

9

When you were really "in", did you have a pet idea that would steer wt into divine favor?

by prologos in

wt writers ( klein) admitted at one time, that his majesty's doctrinal ship was zigzagging to find the right course, and many of us believed, that if we accepted the bible as true, cleaning up the teachings would establish the right bearing.

so: did you have a hobby-horse idea you were riding?

writing to brooklyn perhaps?

Anders Andersen

At two separete occasions single (divorced) sisters (one older, one younger) engaged me in a conversation about how they feared to end up all alone in Paradise.

Both were told by some nutcase JWs that 'in paradise nobody gets married anymore. So if you're single at Armageddon, you're single forever.' Thanks for making them feel better, @55hole!

Anyway, I told both of them that WT reasoning on this topic didn't make sense, and Jesus clearly referred to those with a heavenly calling only when he said they wouldn't get married but 'be like angels'.

Not long after we got some 'new light' saying we shouldn't be dogmatic on this point. Probably GB were getting tired of all the single sister writing letters to inquire about their paradise prospects to get lai....eh married.

Another topic was: will we see children that never made it because of a miscarriage in ressurection? WT said no, I said yes, no reason to think otherwise. WT also changed their position on that.

But so did I. That's the one thing I don't like about having discovered that the whole God/Bible thing doesn't make sense: I won't live forever with my wife and daughter. I will never get to see and hold my first child who unfotunately was never born. I won't see my father again.

But then again: if something "appears too good to betrue, it usually is. Don’t be quick to believe advertising claims and testimonials, thinking, “This is different.”"

150

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel in

first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.

i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.

there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!

Anders Andersen

Hadriel,

I know you're sincere in wanting to know. We are sincere in trying to explain.

It's possible initial life was Created and it still evolved by undesigned biological evolution. However such a supernatural Designer isn't a solution to any of the questions you've asked at all.

And I still fail to see how our lack of understanding of how life began influences or even invalidates our knowledge of how existing life evolved.

And what if we apply your line of reasoning wrt biological evolution to the other side of the story as well:

We don't know where a Creator/Designer/First Cause came from, nor have we any evidence of its existence. Without Creator nothing can ever be created. Hence I can't accept the creation story.

This together with your reasoning means that lacking any good explanation of how it all started, we neither evolved nor were we created, ergo we can't exist. Yet we do exist, even without a clear explanation how life began.

I'd love to have a conversation about the science behind what or how evolution began

Then let's discuss abiogenesis and chemical evolution, without needlessly conflating the discussion with biological evolution or supposed supernatural entities ;-)

BTW 'life' is an artificial, invented label. Where do we put it? At what specific point lies the boundary between 'just' a chemical process, and at what stage can we call this process 'alive'?

Jehalapeno, I'd upvote your comment much more if I could...

150

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel in

first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.

i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.

there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!

Anders Andersen

@Esse Quam,

Your 'I am waiting for cofty to explain' emotions and mental features seems like a veiled statement instead of a sincere question.

Your question seems to indicate that you think those questions can't be answered by biological evolution.

If so, do you have an idea of how emotions and such came into existence? Please share with me because I am eager to learn from anyone.

Mind you, invoking a supernatural Cause that bestowed these features upon humans doesn't answer any of your questions. It just makes a rephrase necessary: how did Supernatural Cause receive/develop/have these features?

150

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel in

first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.

i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.

there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!

Anders Andersen

@Hadriel:

That's what evolutionists want. Common ancestry and genetic code means only one catalyst or origin. That is unwise.
Are you guys telling me that you know unequivocally that the common genetic code we see that it could have only started one possible way, that being happenstance?

Either someone forgot tot tell you, or you missed it: LUCA means Last Universal Common Ancestor.

Please note the Last, as opposed to First. LUCA was not the first life form. Nor was it all alone in itself time. Most likely it was a member a very interesting and crowded community of different primitive microbial life forms. It's also likely that at that time horizontal gene transfer took place (e.g. between different life forms, in addition to vertical gene transfer from generation to next generation), so different life forms influenced each other.

Formal testing has pointed to a single organism being the LUCA to all organisms currently alive (that we know about). This is much more likely than current life having multiple, non-related ancestors.

What does all of this mean for you?

No happenstance. Life probably started in different places, in different ways, with different life forms as a result.
Somewhere down the line all lifeforms died, except descendants of a specific lifeform we now call LUCA.
'Evolutionists' (is that similar to Gravitationists?) don't point to LUCA as a result of a single catalyst. LUCA points to a bottleneck sometime long ago.

Think of it this way: according to the Bible myth, Noah is mankind's Last Common Paternal Ancestor. That does not mean he was either the first man, or the only man in his time.

I hope this clears thing up a bit for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor?wprov=sfla1