it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
... tolerance for ambiguity ...
This is a topic worthy of its own thread.
I may start one in the next few days, ... better make that: a week or so.
Actually, it is a very important concept separate, but related to, the original intent of this thread.
Sadly I am very crunched for time at the moment so I'll merely do this fly-by and hope someone else picks it up.
If no one else does by May 3rd, I'll do it!
posted on april 19, 2015http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/jw-org-does-partial-u-turn-over-awake-magazine-rama-singh-misquote
jw.org has removed their misquote of rama singh from digital versions of awake!
magazine.
Beautiful!
Love the Before & After side-by-side comparison:
"The fact is, many educated people--including a number of scientists--question the validity of the theory." - Emphasis added
It was things like this that got me to start questioning the validity of the content of the WT literature and the integrity of the authors.
Their constant use of weasel words like "many" and "a number" really got me thinking:
-
I was at university learning critical thinking skills at the time I began asking myself these questions. The consistent, recurring lack of academic honesty and integrity on the part of the writers and publisher of WT publications was one of the big things that got me to realize: Oh, my god, I'm in a cult!
Now it's all review.
"hey brother wasa, come on back to the meetings.
" (after 10 years) so i respond that the situation with pedophiles is out of hand.
they tell me "we" elders have received tons of training on the subject, its not like it was 10 years ago.
They tell me that it is safe and in hand now.
Was that a Freudian slip?
blondie posted in another thread the july 15, 2011 extra-simple wt.. paragraph 12 has an amazing double-speak therein..
this idea makes people think only about today.
they do not care about the future or about pleasing god.
There's that "soon" word again!
Don't they know they've been saying it for over a hundred years!
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
This is supposed to be a place for support of ex and current JW's who don't believe this organization has anything to do with God.
Eden, I get your point ... kinda/sorta.
But here's the problem: you are expecting all threads to be treated equally.
If I may, I will use Viviane and Cofty as examples. They can be brutal on threads like this. But that's the point, its on THREADS LIKE THIS!!!
I've read both of them offer some of the kindest, most compassionate words of comfort and encouragement on threads where someone (usually, but not always, a newbie) is expressing their pain and anger at realizing they've been duped by a cult and often suffer being cut off by family members.
Those threads are different.
Think about it.
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Cofty: Why is it remarkable that our brains process input from our 5 senses differently from delusions that originated in our heads?
Interesting question!
despite being in for decades, i have never heard this before.. can any elders confirm this, and the reasoning?.
Searcher, that's a good point. They may try to pull that, but it still says a minimum of two.
The whole rule is ridiculous anyway.
i was just listening to a jc for apostasy on jwstruggle.
the issue was raised if elders are appointed by holy spirit, then why is there such an issue with sex abuse.
the answer was given (and i thought it was quite true) well jesus was the son of god and he appointed judas under holy spirit, just to have him turn on him.
joe134cd: what would be your answer to that.
So, if appointments made by Holy Spirit are indistinguishable from those that are not, then what's the point?
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
EdenOne: the point of debate of this thread isn't about the claim that supernatural thinking increases with age ... but about the different thought processes that the human brain probably uses to process statements of fact and statements of faith. - Emphasis added
Maybe that's the problem.
You Cut & Pasted 10 paragraphs of the article but merely said you found it "interesting" and that you'd like to see an experiment that scans the brain while the person is making a factual statement versus a faith-based statement.
We're not mind readers you know!
You should read this thread: A Request to All Posters Regarding Cut & Paste Posting of "Interesting Articles"
Although you did include some commentary, you didn't include enough for us to know the point you were trying to make. We had to wait two days as many pages and 30+ posts before you explicitly stated "the point of the ... thread."
The points you highlighted certainly didn't make your particular point clear.
despite being in for decades, i have never heard this before.. can any elders confirm this, and the reasoning?.
That's bullshit.
I was an elder for 20 years.
If the particular elder has a lot of influence you've got an uphill battle, but there's no "Three Witness Rule" for them.
