concider:.
they very well could have a repressed loathing for the watchtower and for what it is doing to young children(pedofile and blood issues), families, the old, and even themselves, but because of situation they are in they are forced to suppress it all in the shadow.. so the unconscious(or substitute god for the word unconscious because the unconscious is a far bigger player than ego consciousness), so then the unconscious which according to evolution favors survival and survival of the species is favored even higher i would think, so that at times the unconscious may make a move that trumps ego drives and may lead to an action that puts the "individual" in harms way(kills) but it does so for the good of the larger whole or the "species".
kinda like the mythological one man dying for the whole species of mankind, one example in mythology is jesus christ, among others.. these myths explain many things about what goes on inside a man imo.. more next post.
So sorry to get hung up. I've been learning about evolution recently, but you are right, let's stick to the idea:
The possiblity of the unconscious overiding the ego, and causing bad advice to be given unconsciously by the Governing Body's legal team
Has there historically ever been cases of people giving bad advice unconsiously to protect the greater good? Seems like a hard hypothesis to test. Interesting question though, I admit.
concider:.
they very well could have a repressed loathing for the watchtower and for what it is doing to young children(pedofile and blood issues), families, the old, and even themselves, but because of situation they are in they are forced to suppress it all in the shadow.. so the unconscious(or substitute god for the word unconscious because the unconscious is a far bigger player than ego consciousness), so then the unconscious which according to evolution favors survival and survival of the species is favored even higher i would think, so that at times the unconscious may make a move that trumps ego drives and may lead to an action that puts the "individual" in harms way(kills) but it does so for the good of the larger whole or the "species".
kinda like the mythological one man dying for the whole species of mankind, one example in mythology is jesus christ, among others.. these myths explain many things about what goes on inside a man imo.. more next post.
I know you are talking about evolutionary physcology, which is okay per se. I was just trying to bring out two points:
1) That it is very easy to come up with what Stephen J. Gould called "Just-So-Stories" that darwinize every aspect of human behavior without any evidence to support the story. This is where I threw in the cautionary note. I agree that all human behavior evolved, but what caused it to happen in many areas of behavior is still unknown. For these areas, there is no end to conjecture.
2) I'll admit that perhaps it was a bit unwarrented for me to say your premise may be false. I realize there is more to evolutionary therory than "Natural Selection." It isn't the only process going on. Sexual Selection also exists (which is it's own entity, not a subcategory of natural selection). "Group selection," or some varient of it, is what you seem to be thinking about here. From what I can tell this is a controversal theory since it seems contradictory to natural selection. But what do I know, maybe they are complimentary. Time for me to do some more reading...
concider:.
they very well could have a repressed loathing for the watchtower and for what it is doing to young children(pedofile and blood issues), families, the old, and even themselves, but because of situation they are in they are forced to suppress it all in the shadow.. so the unconscious(or substitute god for the word unconscious because the unconscious is a far bigger player than ego consciousness), so then the unconscious which according to evolution favors survival and survival of the species is favored even higher i would think, so that at times the unconscious may make a move that trumps ego drives and may lead to an action that puts the "individual" in harms way(kills) but it does so for the good of the larger whole or the "species".
kinda like the mythological one man dying for the whole species of mankind, one example in mythology is jesus christ, among others.. these myths explain many things about what goes on inside a man imo.. more next post.
...the unconscious which according to evolution favors survival and survival of the species is favored even higher i would think, so that at times the unconscious may make a move that trumps ego drives and may lead to an action that puts the "individual" in harms way(kills) but it does so for the good of the larger whole or the "species"
I don't wish to be a debbie downer...
Natural selection is about surviving to reproduce. The two are intrinsically related, it's not merely about survival.
I'm pretty sure that natural selection does not support the notion that survival (and ongoing reproduction) of the species is more favored than survival (and reproduction) of the individual. In fact, I think it allows for just the opposite, that evolution does not happen to bring positive adaptations to a species when by doing so it has no direct reproductive benefit to the individual.
(NOTE: You are of course talking about physcology instead of biolgy, which I'm not so sure extrapolating from bilogical evolution explainations for physcological behavior is always apropos.)
In fact, the opposite can and does happen. Something that brings a direct benefit to the individual (reproductively) can be detrimental to the whole of the species. For example, lions do hunt in groups (this insures survival and increases chances of reproduction), yet when intruding males displace resident males from a social group, the intruders kill all the young ones. Is such behavior in latter situation beneficial to the species? No. It could even lead to causing the species to risk extinction if endangered. But it does have a direct reproductive benefit to the individual.
I bring this up since your premise might be based on a false assumption. Altruistic behavior does happen in the framework of natural selection, but it always has strings attached, that helping or sacrificing, ultimately increases the individual's chances of surviving and reproducing.
just nothing more than a 'share'..... i was in pittsburgh on business and took a day off and paid a visit to russells grave.. i haven't stopped laughing since.
i'm worried i'm going to break ribs.. had i seen this as a young kid/adult.....i surely would have thought "wtf???".
folks...if you ever needed confirmation this whole thing is a laughable cult......make your way to pittsburgh and see chuck's resting spot.......its worth it just get pictures with his pyramid.. lol.
This is one of the reasons that the society have distanced themselves from Charles Russell. They now say that the gov body was only around from 1919 onwards, so anyone who said anything earlier than that was not representing God and did not have his spirit backing them.
So I think now that any of us who expose Russell's words and deeds, will not get anywhere with a JW, as he is now not thought of now as anyone special. Just one of many who had certain ideas about the bible. Some things he said were true and other things were complete rubbish.
This is new to me. I'm now out, but I did hear of the FDS = GB change, but didn't catch (or realize) that it changed from meaning the FDS was around only from 1919 on, and thus exluded Russel.
That does sound very convienent. Did motives for the change include trying to distance themselves from Russel? I'm not sure. Is there any evidence for this? Didn't they come out a few years ago with a video about their history that talked alot about Russel and his key role in starting the religion? Do you really think they will now say that Jehovah wasn't "spirit-directing" Russel? If that really is what they are saying now, then well that is fascinating indeed!
watchtower annual meeting report.
october 6, 2012. during their annual meeting the governing body announced some changes in their interpretation of (1) the most important scripture in watch-tower theology, and (2) the most important event in watchtower history.
are their changes new light according to proverbs, or refinement according to daniel and malachi?
So let me get this right.
Jesus needs to later inspect the Governing Body's faithfulness in dispensing spiritual food, food he directs them to give out.
This prompts the question: How does one know if the GB is teaching the truth? How does she know they are really giving people Jesus' direction? Thus, how does one know that JWs represent God's one and only spirit-directed organization?
Maybe the new teaching addresses these questions, but they are the ones my mind first puts up. I don't believe in the Bible so all this is just a hypothetical thought exercise for me.
you may have heard the expression: "the map is not the territory.
" have you ever thought about how this idea may help you reach your loved ones stuck in a cult?
the phrase has been attributed to polish-american scientist and philosopher alfred korzybski.
For movies, The Island is good at highlighting cognitive dissonance and beliving something that isn't true. The Shunning is also really good for showing how unloving shunning is. The Matrix and Shawshank Redemption (the later for dealing with the effects of institutionalization) are good too, but not all JWs would be willing to watch those due to the rating.
after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.
they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.
critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.
NewChapter, I think your question is valid and has not been answered as well.
Also, I think he was meaning 1950 - 1859 = 91 (~100) years. not 2012-1950. Not that it matters much.
according to the wt, these are the actual sequence of events that led to the start of world war i:.
1) the gentile times ended on october 1/2, 1914.
2) jesus took the throne immediately thereafter.. 3) one of jesus' first tasks as the newly enthroned king was to engage in a heavenly war against satan and his demons.. 4) having won the war against satan and his demons, jesus expelled satan and his demons from the heavenly realm giving them only terrestial access.. 5) since satan is a sore loser, he became extremely bitter and decided to wreak havoc upon all the earth.. 6) filled with anger, satan then provoked the nations of the earth into a 4 year bloody battle known today as world war i. so there you have it... wwi started sometime in october of 1914 (not july 1914 as history books would have you believe).
I always wondered this question too (timing of WW1 with 1914 doctrine) and saw the enigma even when I thought the JWs were the true religion. Of course the thought stopping programming then kicked in...
But I remember, after I started my path to not believing the religion, hear a brother say that the one thing that brought him into the truth was his interest in history. When he leaned that WW1 correlated with 1914, he just had to accept this was the "truth." Odd statement indeed when history doesn't show there is a correlation with Oct, 1914 and WWI.
reading the first couple of awakes for 2013 i think there is a pattern developing.. they have the regular "could it have happened by chance" article on something amazing in nature but they are also interviewing a scientist who is also a witness.
this is a pretty interesting tack on a number of levels.. firstly it is sending out the implicit message that "look, this educated person accepts creation, the flood and every other account that is at odds with generally accepted science, so that should give you confidence that you are right as well".
secondly, as a magazine designed for public comsumption is suggests to non-witnesses that there are many well educated people who accept the bible.
Dave Perez: You wouldn't ask a biologist their opinion on a circuit board: why would you ask an electronic engineer for their opinion on biology?It's intellectually dishonest for WT to offer his "educated opinion" as evidence on any topic outside of capacitors and robotics... It's intellectually dishonest for WT to offer his "educated opinion" as evidence on any topic outside of capacitors and robotics.
It can only be "intellectually dishonest" if the writer(s), and more importantly the GB who signs off on the article, are aware that they are making at least one of the following logical fallalcies involved with using this computer scientist to debunk evolution (they may just be unaware of the sloppy logic being used):
The posting about František Vyskocil: In my school years, I believed that the theory of evolution explained life’s diversity... My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’
I'm having a hard time understanding how a person who held a degree in biology and accepted evolution, could then go on to ask the question "how could this happen by blind chance?" For me, studying evolution showed that such a question is a strawman fallacy. I cannot enunciate my thoughts here better than how Jerry Coyne does in his book Why Evolution Is True (p. 129):
This brings up what is surely the most widespread misunderstanding about Darwinism: the idea that, in evolution, "everthing happens by chance"... This common claim is flatly wrong. No evolutionist - and certainly not Darwin - ever argued that natural selection is based on chance. Quite the opposite. Could a completely random process alone make the hammering wood-pecker...? Of course not. If suddenly evolution was forced to depend on random mutations alone, species would quickly degenerate and go extinct. Chance alone cannot explain the marvelous fit between indiiduals and their environment... True the raw materials for evolution - the variations between individuals - are produced by chance mutations. These mutations occur willy-nilly, regardless of whether they are good or bad for the individual. But it is the filtering of that variation by natural selection that produces adaptations, and natural selection is manifestly not random. (Italics his)
He then quotes Richard Dawkin's concise definition of his explainaiton about natural selection: "the non-random survival of random variants."
So I bring this all up to ask this question. How could someone who accepted evolution happened, and also acknowledged that natural section best explains how it happened, later reject it, especially by using strawman logic (i.e. equating mutations and natural selection to "just chance" as he later says)?
I want to be careful to not to use the No True Scottsman Fallacy myself in answering this question (i.e. just resorting to the answer that he/she must not have "truly" accepted/understood evolution).
has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?
they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.
i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.
Perhaps you didn't copy 'n paste. I sorry if I suggested something that wasn't true. So can I try again?
You seem to be saying each GB and bethel heavy gets his own car (or multiple concurrenlty) that total $80-100k in value and gets swapped out every 2 years.
I have two questions. If this claim is true then
If this is true, then great, I'm be happy to know these things, but I want to make sure that it's true. My red flags start being raised for me when I come across information that seems exaggerated, unsubstantiated, or baseless. That doesn't mean the information is such, just that I want more details and facts if possible.
