i cannot compete with threads anymore.
they beat me!
threads about pit bulls and other dogs and virginity get all the attention.
Hey, if you ever need to really exercise "phase 1" and debate a bunch of dubbies, check out Beliefnet. They could really use a guy like you to stir them up. You'd not only have fun with dubbies, but also fundies.
BUT, by all means don't leave this board! I always tend to lurk, more than post, and your comments always get me thinking. You're such a straight shooter.
hi there everyone, just wanted to see if any of you believe in any psychics or paranormal activity.
i know that as a jw we are taught that any ghosts are demons and any psychic activities are demonized.
would love to hear any feedback and or any pesonal experiences you have had and if you believe they are all demons, or if there is a difference between good and bad spirits.
Ugh, I've debated about posting this..... BUT, (perhaps its a rebellious thingy) I went to a psychic about 2 months ago. I guess part of me wanted to do it BECAUSE it is against the "bible", and I wanted to see what would happen.
First, I didn't have any "weird" feelings. If demons were hanging around the room, I didn't notice
I hardly spoke as she did the reading. She just told me stuff. First, I'm suppose to meet the man I will marry before the end of June (hmmm, count down). I won't meet him through dating services, but he'll come into my life in a "surprising" way. He'll have sandy hair (light in the summer, dark in the winter) and hazel/green eyes.
So far, I haven't met anyone! Funny, I look at eye-color now, and you'd be surprised how many people DO NOT have hazel/green eyes.
Second, I'm suppose to move into a townhouse in Sept. This is actually weird, because my lease is up in August, AND my landlord just recently had an appraiser come look at the place. I HATE townhouses, so I don't put much into this one....
All in all, it was only $50 bucks for 1/2 hour and it felt good to do something a little CRAZY and against "Watchtower" policy. Probably just another thing I needed to test.
BTW I'm a skeptic, but I'll let you know if I meet anyone fitting the description within the next week and a half!!!!
well, as many of you know (i posted earlier about this) yesterday i had a get-together with my mom.
i was soooo ready to just leave when she started witnessing to me, but..........that didn't happen.
she changed her approach.
"Did you do anything to be disfellowshipped for? Were you and B. (my hubby) immoral before you got married?"
UGH!!! What business is it of hers?!?!?!
When I told my mom I was seeing my boyfriend, she came out and asked me "Are you two having sex?"
I told her that was an inappropriate question, and none of her business. After a couple of days past, we talked again, and she apologized for asking such a stupid question.
Normal people don't ask these types of personal questions.
Because black people will "get" the joke...
Blondes on the other hand....
after reading many experiences and comments on the board, i have begun to have questions.
questions that i really didnt know i until i read them.
as a recently df'd person, i am still struggling with whether jws are really a cult or is it just that im bitter for being torn away from the only thing that i knew, where i had friends that i thought loved me.
I was watching Oprah the other day. It was about women who committed crimes. Near the end, she interviewed two girls - one who had family support and learnt from her crime/mistake, the other girl was "thrown away" from her parents and had no family support. Oprah made it very clear the mental/social implication of "discarding" someone.
I believe this is what we struggle with the most and why there are so many support groups for ex-JWs. We've been "discarded". We're told we're unworthy and disposable.
I believe we join together to reinforce ourselves, to prove to ourselves that we do have "worth". That it is morally wrong to discard someone.
I believe that any organization (be it work, volunteer organzations, religions) have the right to remove people from groups that don't follow the group's rules, and individuals have a right to leave if they no longer support the group. BUT, I disagree with the excess JWs take with the total "cutting off" from friends and family. Even in society, when you commit a crime, and are sent to prison, you are allowed visits from friends and family.
.
i just found this amazing link, it takes a long time to load but its worth it!.
http://www.killfrog.com/newpages/ever.html
I can't have kids
that's the title of the song that was playing when i got in my car after work tonight.
pretty funny tune by paul thorn (www.paulthorn.com).
it was just a guy and his guitar, recorded live in a tennesse farmhouse.. .
The first time I heard this song was at a country jamboree. Pouring rain and cold!!!! Chris Cummings (who I later met) sang this song!!!
My sis (who's majorly pregnant at the time) and I almost fall over backwards laughing. I couldn't believe it
for work, i'm taking an ethics seminar (with test) in my industry.
the focus of the course should be on the code of conduct we will govern ourselves by and the consequences of not doing so (basically a group ethic).
however after i've read the course material, the author is very biased towards ethical relativism.. his comments range from:.
Well, I got through the course. I was the first one to the class, so I had a second to speak with the author and instructor of the ethics material. After introducing ourselves, I told him that I noticed he wasn't a fan of "Relativism". He right away asked me if I had a BA or took any university courses. I told him "no", but that I have a personal interest in ethics and have read much on the subject. Then I quoted some source materials that I've used. I told him I disagreed with his definiation and use of the term "Ethical Relativity". He said that his audience usually doesn't have any exposure to ethics and its theories... thats it, so I let it go.
In class, we get to the part dealing with this theory. A slide is displayed with :
"Ethical Relativism (Me First): There is no such thing as a universal moral principal to govern my behaviour. Everthing is relative, situational, negotiable, and up for grabs by whoever wishes to define what the values are for this particular occasion. Each new situation requires me to redefine my values and actions with me having the last say on what is right or wrong."
So he's going on that this "Relativist" attitude is only a recent phenomenon (uhhh, hello, its been debated since the 5th century) and that its due to TV watching. That parents aren't training their children anymore with moral values (BS). Everyone in class seems to be buying into it. So I speak up.
"My understanding of Ethical Relativism from all the sources I've read, define it as "the viewpoint that ethics/morals are not absolute, but instead emerge from social customs and other sources" and that what he's describing is an unethical person or perhaps Egoism.
He says "egoism" grows out of Relativism.... really?!?!? new one to me. I know Utilitarian may come out of it, but this is a new one to me! So I said it.
He was flustered, and quite frankly, this wasn't the forum to debate him, so I just said that I wanted to make my point that I did not agree with his definition and use of the word.
Sporatically in the conversation, he would actually be promoting "relativism" in the class, and I would speak up and ask "isn't that relativity?" He would agree, because it was, and move on.
I don't know what his problem is with the theory (ignorance? bias???) but we got to hand in accessments afterwards. I marked him good on presentation, speech, etc. but I was honest in other areas and in my comments included that the use of what a "relativist would do (unethical decisions)" was inflammitory and biased.
I feel so much better now!!!!!
for work, i'm taking an ethics seminar (with test) in my industry.
the focus of the course should be on the code of conduct we will govern ourselves by and the consequences of not doing so (basically a group ethic).
however after i've read the course material, the author is very biased towards ethical relativism.. his comments range from:.
it's a lack of ethics
Exactly. Thats what he's describing. The thing is I can't get into a full-fledged debate, as I don't have all my "ducks in a row" (in the sense of reading material), BUT, I know this guy is way off base!!!
Anyone doing a "google" search, will in the basics of the theory NOT arrive at this guy's conclusions.
In alot of ways I think this view of Absolute and Relativism is just another form of God vs Evolution.
for work, i'm taking an ethics seminar (with test) in my industry.
the focus of the course should be on the code of conduct we will govern ourselves by and the consequences of not doing so (basically a group ethic).
however after i've read the course material, the author is very biased towards ethical relativism.. his comments range from:.
For work, I'm taking an Ethics seminar (with test) in my industry. The focus of the course SHOULD be on the code of conduct we will govern ourselves by and the consequences of not doing so (basically a Group Ethic). However after I've read the course material, the author is very biased towards Ethical Relativism.
His comments range from:
" Matthew (the case study example) found that ethical relativism is based on an erroneous belief. It states there is no such thing as a universal moral principle and that only the individual's beliefs are real. But in fact, there is much research that states there are universal moral principles that are cross cultural."
"Ethical Relativism (Me First): There is no such thing as a universal moral principal to govern my behaviour. Everthing is relative, situational, negotiable, and up for grabs by whoever wishes to define what the values are for this particular occasion. Each new situation requires me to redefine my values and actions with me having the last say on what is right or wrong."
He confuses Utilitarian Ethics with Relativism. In one case study Matthew would be making an unethical (and illegal) choice by buying shares via insider trading. His comment is "Using just this ethical system, Matthew could well choose to buy the shares for himself. This would be the ethical relativist's choice."
UGH, I'm so frustrated. My understanding of Ethical Relativism is the viewpoint that ethics/morals are not absolute, but instead emerge from social customs and other sources. I lean towards this theory, and recognize that Relativism has its strengths and weaknesses (as does Absolute Ethics).
I just don't agree with him presenting the material in such a biased manner. He obviously perscribes to an "absolutist" point of view, and as such is presenting the relativism as an equivalent to an immoral, unethical, selfish, "godless" view.
I want to speak up. I don't know if its appropriate to raise these issues in the class (it is an ethics seminar) or speak to him before the seminar and let him know I felt his view of relativism was biased. I don't want to be "quiet" about it, because it will give a class room of people the wrong impression of this ethical theory.
