MrRoboto

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 355 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MrRoboto

• 
  16

  Gradualism for the blood doctrine?

  by no-zombie in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  here in australia, during the service meeting this week, the local needs part was taken up to quickly discuss a letter from the organization stating that there will no longer be a annual meeting part to discuss or remind the congregations about their blood cards.. i found this quite odd.. its not like that there is a shortage of meeting time to discuss this issue, as the society has recently been hijacking more and more local needs parts for its own messages.

  and for a supposedly important doctrine, you would think that it should be mentioned more often rather than less, to keep everyone in line.. could this be a beginning of the movement away from the blood doctrine, through the process of gradualism?.

  no-zombie .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Perhaps the letter is regional? Based on perception of legal liability in particular countries? I would like to see this letter as well.
• 
  16

  Gradualism for the blood doctrine?

  by no-zombie in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  here in australia, during the service meeting this week, the local needs part was taken up to quickly discuss a letter from the organization stating that there will no longer be a annual meeting part to discuss or remind the congregations about their blood cards.. i found this quite odd.. its not like that there is a shortage of meeting time to discuss this issue, as the society has recently been hijacking more and more local needs parts for its own messages.

  and for a supposedly important doctrine, you would think that it should be mentioned more often rather than less, to keep everyone in line.. could this be a beginning of the movement away from the blood doctrine, through the process of gradualism?.

  no-zombie .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Yes but if there is no specific rule against it, it essentially becomes a conscience matter.. Or does it? There are things that could get you DF or DA that you don't find out about until either it happens to you or you read the elder book so..

  My question is this: if it wasn't officially denounced but it is no longer an active teaching, is it still considered a teaching/belief of JWs? There are quite a few ridiculous teachings that just faded away without being changed/renounced.
• 
  2

  Jesus Christ The Founding source of Christianity [ Peace, Love,Family ,forgiveness and turn the other Cheek teaching ]

  by smiddy3 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  that is the popular view of jesus christ as the prince of peace and the protector of children.. you don`t hear very much about the flip side of jesus teachings that contradict those teachings do you.. matt.10:34-37 .

  "34 .do not think i came to put peace upon the earth,i came to put not peace but a sword 35..for i came to cause division with a man against his father and a daughter against her mother and a young wife against her mother in law 36.,indeed a man`s enemies will be persons of his own household.

  37. he that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than me is not worthy of me.".

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Mission accomplished. Look at how divided families get when people wake up to TTATT. If the "Greek scriptures"never existed, this wouldn't be such an issue.
• 
  6

  The Blood Soaked Savagery of the YHWH/Jesus Creation

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you remember being with a group of witnesses looking at some cute little animal and everyone saying, "oooh!

  isn't jehovah sooo wooooonderful!!!

  " of course, most other christians are just as prone to utter such insipid, sugary and idiotic expressions.. the cats and dogs that we often dote on are the result of hundreds of years of breeding out undesirable traits, but their original ancestors survived by catching and tearing to pieces cute, cuddly little animals who are stricken with terror as they are hunted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Interesting points on that scripture. Once I was able to clear my mind of the JW specific indoctrination, I still had to wonder about the killing/feeding cycles of various animals. Doesn't seem quite right that these innocent animals should be eaten alive, torturously murdered as a result of mans' sin. That would be like (deity) saying to mankind "sorry guys, since the creatures I made on Mars decided to disobey me, you're going to become food for the dogs, better start running! But don't worry, in a few thousand years, when we're back on good terms, the dogs will eat grass instead". Yeah I'm a bit past wondering about the bible these days.
• 
  11

  Louise Palmer: British Parliament to bring up the two witness rule

  by Diogenesister in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  fantastic news!

  louise palmer, the lass recently interviewed by a major british newspaper and a csa survivor, has tweeted the following:.

  what a busy couple of days!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Finkelstein, that's not the first time I've seen reference to some "destroy the evidence" instruction but I'm not familiar with the actual document(s) can you give a link or maybe just cite which letter or whatever they used? I really would like to see this and maybe share it.
• 
  37

  My Cognitive Dissonance is Eating Me Alive (Intro Post)

  by pometerre21 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been lurking here for a couple of weeks now.

  i'm starting to "awaken" and it is all that has been occupying my mind.

  i've always, always had doubts, some of which i expressed to family members who always had the same replies:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Welcome Pom, and thank you for sharing.

  I just wanted to touch on your concern for your family if you were to leave. Many here can certainly relate, and you'll find that folks have different ways of dealing with that. Some are PIMO (physically in, mentally out), some have faded and managed to be careful enough not to get DF'd while others simply walked away. Some have disassociated themselves officially, turning in a letter to that effect and some have just let the apostate accusations run their course, recording their judicial committee for all the world to see on YouTube.

  Where you go from here is up to you but I would suggest that it's quite an unhealthy way of life to stick with it while being in full knowledge of the wickedness of the organization. Even for the sake of family, it will be stressful and tremendously weighty, dragging you down until you can loose yourself from the seven men on Kings Drive (Tuxedo Park, New York, disingenuously referred to as Warwick)
• 
  18

  God is not the creator

  by venus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  every theory (including darwin’s) primarily proves someone has to design a theory; every product primarily proves someone has to design it.

  when neil armstrong and buzz aldrin landed on the moon it primarily proved intelligence of many people had to design that moon-mission.. 1) if every machine primarily proves someone designed it, then a much more complex, wonderful, and living machine with reproductive feature would mean the same: someone with corresponding ability, of higher energy, designed it because effect explains the cause just like harvest explains the sowing (whether you saw sowing or not).

  science shows human body is like a complex machinery with many departments/systems (such as respiratory, digestive, cardiovascular/circulatory, renal/urinary, endocrine, nervous, musculoskeletal, integumentary/exocrine, lymphatic/immune, reproductive etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  You remind me of Ralph Smart (infinite waters) on you tube, my first exposure to the ideas.

  I'm leaning heavily to the Maya side of things based on my own observations as well as experimental evidence but at this point I can't quite make the jump over to the spiritual side of things (but I don't rule it out either, just can't find sufficient evidence)

  I was wondering though, in your regression that you mention, do you thing there will be any long term effects of repressing the memories as you led her to do? Or is this a permanent overwrite of those memories?

  Also, with everything being energy/brahma how would you feel about guiding a person through mind-over-matter type healing or other physical changes that should be impossible? (hair or eye color changes for example) just my idea of reality tampering/experiments.

  Not really sure what any of this has to do with JW-land but incidentally, my awakening to the Maya was concurrent to my bORG awakening. I wonder if some dmt would help my eye at all.
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Outtahere,

  You personally know what you have been programmed to think and 'believe' as a highly sophisticated AI system. I would expect you to say those things about your conscious mind but you are no different than a less cool (gotta wear the right sun glasses) version of Agent Smith. I, of course, am Neo.

  I only say that because from my perspective, I cannot prove any different - I could measure your brain activity but.. And then again, I am your Smith, and you are my Neo - from your vantage point.
  

  Consciousness if one of those things that people really don't have the words to describe on more than a superficial level. Any description we may want to use will inevitably lead to more questions and lack of clarity.

  x. I think therefore I am.

  y. wait, but I also think!

  x. well, I'm not so sure about that, therefore you are NOT, possibly. But I most definitely am.
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  Is that to say one mind as a fundamental feature..? or each particle, quark, sun, atom, human etc has a mind each? Where is the line drawn?

  consciousness observing may collapse the waveform but that doesn't give the cat consciousness (even if it is alive, its' consciousness if not derived from the observer)

  I'm not completely sure I understand their "experience" terminology but I would say that if a conscious observer collapses a waveform then that should be the test for consciousness. Can an atom always collapse the waveform for photons ? if not, is it because they can't "observe" them?

  It has been shown that detectors (observers made of matter) can be used in experiments to collapse the waveform - but only when consciousness if involved - that is to say that if the data is erased before consciousness has a chance to observe it (i.e. humans) then the result is the same as if no consciousness was involved at all - I think that should tell us something about what is conscious and what isn't. (i'm referring to the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, if you want more info on that)

  I, for one, would like to see the delayed choice quantum eraser performed with a dog as the observer. and also with many humans, to see if there is any change
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrRoboto

  If a person was standing before you and you asked them if they were conscious, what is their answer?
  

  Do you believe them? Why? You cannot verify the answer as being correct.

  Sufficient AI would have you convinced that it is conscious, self-aware.

  Would it actually be? if not, why not?

  How can you show that your own consciousness is not simply a complex-enough AI system to fool others and even perhaps yourself? Would that mean you are not conscious?

  Aside from complexity, what is the difference between you and Mario (from Mario Bros. games)

  If consciousness cannot arise from non-conscious matter alone then there would have to be a conscious creator of us. Assuming we are actually conscious.

  If it can arise from non-conscious matter alone then we should have seen some evidence of that already and we should perhaps be able to design conscious systems already. That would put us in the role of the conscious creator but then we have to ask ourselves: 1. are we perhaps just carefully adjusted matter arranged just so, on purpose by a higher-level conscious creator? or 2. are we the top-level of consciousness, somehow self-assembling from the soup of matter that is the "universe"? 2nd option there makes some folks more comfortable but it is less reasonable and more illogical than option 1.

  How can we know?

  Perhaps its turtles all the way down.