Posts by TonusOH

27

Pornography in the Marriage

by LostintheFog1999 in

the magazine that they are studying in the congregation this month has an article at the back about how pornography in a marriage could damage the relationship.. there's one piece of advice that sounds rather scary, the wt suggests that the couple should "consider asking an elder with whom you are both comfortable to sit in and guide your discussions for a time.".

how many of you would want an elder present in your home while you and your partner discussed your personal sexual cravings and the type of porn videos being watched?.

TonusOH

Next month's issue: "When we advised couples to invite an elder to discuss the issue, we were NOT encouraging threesomes!!!"

3144

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

TonusOH

You think he would use that name and picture (and the link to lloydevans.info)? LOL, that looks like someone having fun at his expense.

7

No Blood Policy and some repercussions

by Listener in

thank you atlantis for the emails that you send out to so many of us.

in one email that i received dated 21st october was a jw document title "information for patients requiring chemotherapy or surgery".

the organization never ceases to shock and i was disgusted with the information included in this document because it leads to their followers not getting the best medical care, not just because of their no blood policy but because of the other repercussions which they highlight in this information guide.. they begin by stating they are not giving medical advice, just information to help individuals make their own decisions.. point 7 states.

TonusOH

They aren't practicing medicine. That is quackery.

Their interpretation of a couple of Biblical passages has led to suffering and death. My mother almost died a year ago, when she had internal bleeding and the doctors at the hospital could not locate the source. Since she was unwilling to get a transfusion, she came very very close to bleeding to death. They managed to use other means to slow the blood loss and the bleeding stopped and she was able to recover. But she was probably a few hours from death. After all these years, I don't think she would accept blood even if the WTS said it was okay.

They don't need to practice medicine. The medical profession is doing just fine without their help.

3144

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

TonusOH

I think Evans is trying to say that people claimed he was an activist for the money, with his high earnings as proof. I don't think that works as a defamation charge. Saying that his activism is a money-making scheme could be considered defamatory. Saying that he makes a lot of money is not.

Of course, he is not making this argument for the court. He is making it for his remaining supporters. He knows he can frame the issues any way he wants when he is presenting it to them.

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.

TonusOH

PetrW: it was just a rhetorical allusion to the fact that the inter-scientific disputes closer to us, are not as clearly fought as one might suppose..

It's a good example of that, yes. The scientific method yields results that become more reliable over time. In the case of COVID and vaccines, we can see that it isn't just biases at play, but also political considerations which play an outsized role, as well as our unhelpful need for certainty. I think that our minds are wired so that we prefer to be certain about things we cannot yet know, than to accept that we need to wait and learn more.

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.

TonusOH

We do trust in others to some extent (often to a great extent) when it comes to what we know or understand about our world or universe. The level of that trust is dependent on a number of factors.

Some factors are unreliable. We may trust in something if enough people tell us it is so. Other factors are much more reliable. We will trust in knowledge whose application confirms what we are being told. The latter is even more useful if there is a way for others to confirm it as well.

Science is the latter. The scientific method sets out the ways in which knowledge and understanding can be reliably pursued. Observation, hypothesis, research, experimentation and --most important-- documentation. Showing others your work so that they can replicate it and prove, disprove, or improve it. Keep what works, discard what doesn't. Rinse and repeat, so that over time mistakes and human biases can be gradually filtered out.

Religion is the former. Without an agreed-upon method of determining what is true and what is not, we are stuck at the observation and hypothesis stages, and we cannot progress from there. This is why science can reach global consensus on issues, given enough time. And why religion cannot, and is so fragmented that even specific religions are split into many different denominations, some of which are irreconcilable even though the primary tenets are not in dispute.

What I'm trying to say is that trust is not an equalizer here. Some things are much more trustworthy than others.

13

Confirmation that religion is dying.

by Phizzy in

this is from a site called "atheist republic" :.

" the phenomenon of "nones" — individuals who claim no religious affiliation — is rapidly reshaping america's religious landscape.

recent surveys by the associated press-norc center for public affairs research indicate that 30% of u.s. adults identify as nonreligious.

TonusOH

I don't get the impression that it's 30%, but as has already been noted, this is not saying that 30% are atheist/agnostic, but that they are not listing their religion (if any). I think we may be in a transition period, where people are dropping away from some of the formal activities of religion but maintaining a spiritual outlook and some kind of belief in the paranormal/supernatural.

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.

TonusOH

ExB: 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?

Morals are used to protect a group, be it a community or a nation. Thus, they are arrived at by the group, and as the community grows and becomes more organized, they are codified as rules or laws.

After all, it is not difficult to imagine what would happen to a community where murder and theft were not outlawed. The community would break down as people were robbed and killed, until few were left. Their lives would be worse off, and their prospects for surviving long enough to reproduce would dwindle. A community that worked to limit destructive behavior would not have this problem. Thus, human communities selected for traits and ideas that made for better and safer lives.

Even many animal species follow behavioral rules that protect the group, which makes them more likely to grow and evolve further. This kind of behavioral framework will work much better than those that do not control destructive behavior.

I don't need a god or book to help me to understand why certain behaviors are preferred and others are not. The simplest reason (but not the only one, by far) for why murder, theft, or rape are bad are that I know I would not want to experience them. A society where these behaviors are outlawed is going to be in better shape than one where they are not. This is easy to recognize without divine intervention.

10

found a tract at my door/with a catch!

by enoughisenough in

i found a tract at my door.

it was from a local baptist church!

( actually,i think someone wanted to give me a donation for the left over yardsale items i gave away.

TonusOH

That is the problem with the WTS approach. They want you to be open-minded and question everything when you are not a JW, then they want you to have unquestioned loyalty and obedience when you are.

They try to hide it a little bit- the approach is "test the things we tell you and you will see that they are true." Not 'test it to see if it is true' but 'test it and you will confirm it is true.' If your test does not confirm that what they tell you is true, then you had better test again and again until you see the truth of what they are saying. Otherwise you risk removal.

When you are in and determined to stay in, you can gloss over the contradiction. But it doesn't go away. Every time you see/hear a JW reject any non-WTS literature or discussion because it is dangerous to read or listen to, you wonder why someone who has god's own truth would be afraid to confront the devil's lies. In order to continue to remain, you have to lie to yourself. At some point you either confront this problem or you bury it.

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.

TonusOH

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. Our community, our religious belief, our personal circumstances... all of these play a part.

Perhaps the real issue is the presumption that morals can only be rigid and inflexible. Almost no one treats them that way, with the probable exception of the ones with a solid consensus (murder or rape, for example). Admitting that morality is frequently pliable seems to be a non-starter for many religious believers, since they are certain that these rules come from god and are therefore strict regardless of severity.