FreeWilly

Joined

• started 28 topics
• posted 509 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by FreeWilly

• 
  67

  Caught Wife Cheating

  by roflcopter in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i posted a while back about my marriage problems.... whole new gambit thrown into the mix.

  i've had suspicions all along that something like this might be happening... but only just not confirmed that she's been cheating on me... with another jw that she works with!

  she could have been more discreet about it rather than leave all the text messages on her phone.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Been there done that.

  The only question now is how long do you want the bleeding to continue?
• 
  16

  Did you REALLY ever have faith in God or was it more in men?

  by avidbiblereader in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  seriously, think about this, when you look back on your faith, was it really in god, or was it the god from the witness perspective and you really did/do equate the witness organization with god, or was it really in men?.

  with so many that have been disillusioned with god since leaving the witnesses, where was your faith really in?.

  respectfully,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  ABR,

  Do you ever worry that your 'relationship' with God exists merely in your mind? Afterall, this must be the case for those of other religions - yes? If you are an ABR, then you likely discount the validity of millions of other people's 'relationship' with God. For them it DOES exist ONLY in their minds. Yet you are different -what makes you so certain its not the same mental trick?

  Like many of other religious beliefs, yours likely follows a similar model. You believe (I suspect) writings in an ancient holy book that dipicts supernatural interractions between God and humans from a time long long ago - events whose veracity is extremely difficult to substantiate with evidence. And, just like those other belief systems, yours too must explain why these depicted supernatural interractions, for some reason, are never observed or substantiated by evidence today. This leaves modern believers of religious writings today with no other choice but to accept the supernatural claims of these ancient writings on the basis of "belief", "faith" or some other concept that overlooks and avoids tangible, confirmable evidence.

  How do you explain the descrepancy of miraculouse historical dipictions, yet their complete absence in our modern experience?

  What convinces you that your beliefs represent reality?

  Thanks,

  FW
• 
  5

  18yo nephew wants to know why I left the Troof.

  by FreeWilly in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'd love a few ideas here.

  my nephew has told my sister that he intends to ask me why i left the 'truth'.

  he's a great kid and i'm hopefull he'll eventually see the light.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  I'd love a few ideas here. My nephew has told my sister that he intends to ask me why I left the 'truth'. He's a great kid and I'm hopefull he'll eventually see the light. However he's been raised in the 'truth' and this is all he know's. I'm looking for ideas or suggestions on what best to tell him.

  In my mind the reasons are:

  The Bible God is a brutal bully intent on genocide.

  The Bible itself lacks credibility.

  The Society has provided ample evidence that it has no link at all with a divine being - i.e false predictions, wacky, shifting doctrines, etc.

  The Society is a controlling organization willfully destroys families.

  I fear these are a bit strong for him. Any ideas?
• 
  11

  Is it time to Reconsider Nuclear Power? Article re: Stewart Brand, and more

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.peoplesvoicemagazine.com/.

  above is a link to an article i just wrote on the movement among some environmentalists to reconsider nuclear energy, focusing in particular on stewart brand, the futurist, author, entrepeneur and genius who created the whole earth catalog, the well, and lots of other extremely cool stuff.

  click on the link and then click on the main feature at the top of the page, where it mentions brand.. brand is also a scientist, and is basing his change of view about nuclear power on reason and science as opposed to the romantic emotionalism of much of the environmental movement.. this is a huge change in the focus of some environmentalists and is creating quite a stir.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  The problem with civilian nuclear power has been a lack of standardization - How true that is... or at least was! This is basically due to improvments learned along the way. However, current designs are now standardized with all of the bugs worked out. Two of these designs are approved by the NRC (Westinghouse AP 600, AP1000). Two more are under consideration (GE, Advanced BWR's). The advancements that have been made over the earlier 1960's designs are impressive. For example these 4 designs incorporate safety features that make them statistically safer than existing reactors by a factor of 10!

  This of course was also true with the US navy too. Just look at the Enterprise! However, they also saw the advantages of standardization.

  Civilian plants do not certify operators, test engineers, etc. the same way. (Thank you Admiral Rickover). The civilian world should take a page out of the military in this case, and run the plants in the same manner. Our Reactor Operator programs entail full time Classroom/Simulator instruction for 22 months! Then after passing a battery of tests they receive a license from the NRC. Then they begin a another qualification process that lasts an additional 18 months. 90% of our Licensed Operators are ex navy nukes. The license program for civilian is at least, if not more robust than the Navy's. There is much more oversight and the performance incentive/penalty scheme creates a very high standard. 3 of 3 ex navy operators who I just polled contend that the civilian program is at least as robust for intial training, and more robust for ongoing training and operations. So take that you slimy squid !! (their comments not mine) :)
• 
  23

  I am baffled as to why I Urinate so often and I am not a "Diabetic"?

  by booker-t in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  i am really scared to go to the doctor but i am going after 5 years of constantly getting up to go to the bathroom especially at night.

  in the daytime i hardly ever have to use the bathroom.

  i have been tested for diabetis for many years and each time the doctor tells me "you are not a diabetic booker-t" i am terrified now because a good friend of mine who is in his early 40's as i am just found out he has prostate cancer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Define "frequent". Are you also always thirsty?

  This almost sounds like a case I recently saw an episode of Mystery Diagnosis on the Discovery channel of a women who had really frequent urination - I'm talking every hour or two. This women could not sleep all the way through the night. She also had to drink lots of water all the time or her body would freak out. She described her problems more in terms of insatiable thirst with frequent urination as a side effect. She was never without a water bottle.

  After seeing multiple Doctors and receiving multiple (wrong) diagnosis, she found one Doctor who decided to test her Petuitary Gland function. Applarantly it controls the kidneys by releasing a hormone to tell your body to either retain or shed water via urination. Due to a car accident that injured her head a couple of years back, her Petuitary Gland would no longer release the hormone that told the kidneys to stop. Anyway, the cure was a simple inhaler that contained the hormone. She was instantly releaved of the symptoms.

  Just thought I'd throw that one out there.... just in case.

  -FW
• 
  104

  If the bible is from God then explain this!

  by Anti-Christ in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  nu 31:17-18 moses, following the lord's command, orders the israelites to kill all the midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...." (note: how would it be determined which women had known men?

  one can only speculate.

  dt 21:10-13 with the lord's approval, the israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Oh Mad one... Please count me worthy to receive you bounteous provisions. Feed me, like a young anxious puppy, those tastey morsels dropping from Jojjoba's glorious table. Flash me, like an intoxicated spring breaker, this brilliant light to illuminate my way. Oh Mad one, hold back no longer I beg of thee.
• 
  25

  Acts 5:42 (from house to house) OR (in private homes)

  by rassillon in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ***i believe i have the correct scripture here but if i don't please correct me.

  i have thought a great deal on this topic since i first read it in one of ray franz books isocf.. he had a section that dealt with the greek term translated "house to house" and compared it to other scriptures which contained the same greek phrase and showed that it was likely that it should be translated "in private homes".. now i know that some will make the point that "house to house" is a valid translation and from what i know (which is very little) cannot disagree.. what i can say though is that from my knowledge about life in this period and this area of the world and from my traveling to ruins of ancient citys i would have to agree with franz that the phrase "in private homes" makes more sense because preaching from "house to house/door to door" at that time period would have been extreemely ineffective.

  preaching in a public square and then returning with interested ones to their "private homes" for further discussion would make more sense if one was to be effective.. from those with a knowledge of the time/place/culture that this scripture applies to, do you agree with me?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  "Propaganda is not necessarily a negative term". -priceless!

  "Questions are part of the schedule." - As are the answers. Make sure to use a great big highlighter so your bookstudy conductor can see that you Studied underlined your Watchtower.

  "So there is definitely a contrast maintained in the application of the Apostle Paul's words, whether when written, or even now." - Good point Q. Paul is referrring to the efforts he extended to his audience whether they were in public or private settings. Contrast this with the JW view that disregards the context entirely, attempting to make a point not addressed by the author.
• 
  25

  Acts 5:42 (from house to house) OR (in private homes)

  by rassillon in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ***i believe i have the correct scripture here but if i don't please correct me.

  i have thought a great deal on this topic since i first read it in one of ray franz books isocf.. he had a section that dealt with the greek term translated "house to house" and compared it to other scriptures which contained the same greek phrase and showed that it was likely that it should be translated "in private homes".. now i know that some will make the point that "house to house" is a valid translation and from what i know (which is very little) cannot disagree.. what i can say though is that from my knowledge about life in this period and this area of the world and from my traveling to ruins of ancient citys i would have to agree with franz that the phrase "in private homes" makes more sense because preaching from "house to house/door to door" at that time period would have been extreemely ineffective.

  preaching in a public square and then returning with interested ones to their "private homes" for further discussion would make more sense if one was to be effective.. from those with a knowledge of the time/place/culture that this scripture applies to, do you agree with me?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  AS: "The contrast for publicly would be privately."

  Precisely. The context is listing two contrasting venues for preach, that done in a public forum and that done in a private one. The WTS and many JW's seems to require only the phrase, deviod of the context, to make some abstract point about their 'preferred' method of peddling preaching.
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  I guess we can now add Allegre to the list of 'Hacks' with a yet-to-be-determined oil agenda. I'd bet he and Lizden bought one of those do it youself oil drilling rigs you see in the back of Popular Mechanics Mgazine. Bastards, they are everywhere infecting pure politics science.

  It cannot be natural phenomenom for that would evacuate the political imperative.
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Lovely debate.

  Hopefully sooner or later someone will provide the DATA that shows CO2 as a climate driver. We have EVIDENCE of CO2 fluctuations extending back millions of years and with atmospheric concentration many times higher than we have today. Do we ever see it driving global temperatures in all of these millions of years? If we assume it will begin to drive our climate now, why did it fail previously?

  There is EVIDENCE that the sun is historically responsible for much of our climate's temperature variability. Where is the cooresponding evidence for CO2's causative effect on temperature?

  Can we be this far along in the debate and have overlook this obvious ommission?

  Fun Reading:

  CO2 put into prespective

  CO2 during ice ages!