Prayers ,are they answered ? or is it just self delusion ?

by smiddy3 in

after 33 years as a jw and leaving 25 years ago i think prayer can be summed up with the jews praying at the wailing wall.. all they are doing is talking to a brick wall ,and getting no feed back.

and they expect an answer to their prayers ?!.

christians /other beliefs might find that funny but they are no better off.. prayer is always a one way street you talk either vocally or mentally to god however you never get the same back .. if god " so loved the world that he doesnt want any to be destroyed but have everlasting life " then whats the problem with him audibly answering his servants prayers ?

Island Man

It's just self delusion, and here's how it can be demonstrated:

The only prayers that are ever "answered" are prayers for events that are possible without a god: Getting a new job, recovering from a recoverable illness, finding a life partner, finding your keys, etc. All these are events that are very much within the realm of possibility and so they will inevitably coincide with prayers asking for them, giving one the illusion of answered prayers.

The only prayers that are never answered are prayers for events that are naturally impossible but should be possible with a god: An amputee regrowing a limb, a week old corpse coming back to life, a mountain being literally lifted up and transferred to the sea. All these are events that are impossible with man but should be possible with god. But prayers for such things are never answered. Why? Because there is no god listening to prayers.

Possible events happen and they will inevitably coincide with prayers for them. Impossible events won't happen and will never coincide with prayers for them. There is no god listening to and answering prayers. It's all self-delusion through coincidences and confirmation bias.

6

Bosquejos del superintendente de circuito (septiembre de 2017 a febrero de 2018)

by accesible in

jw
friends

aquí están los cuatros bosquejos.... https://drive.google.com/open?id=0bywm0b0qtwlsekvnn0zxrmlzalu.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0bywm0b0qtwlsy2pulwfplv91duk.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0bywm0b0qtwlsnhzsa2hitfa3cxc.

Island Man

Circuit Overseer outlines (September 2017 to February 2018)

7

Elder lying to me about a child molester.

by karter in

jw
friends

i was talking to an elder recently about all sorts of things non j.w related.. he said something about a guy in his congregation who is related to my ex wife and molested a little girl.. i said " i don't want to hear anything about that guy after what he did".

elder"i dont know what he did".

me" he is a child sex offender".

Island Man

But remember: according to Watchtower's definition of lying, it's not really a lie if the elder believes you're not entitled to know the truth.

35

September 1, 2017 BOE Re: Protecting Minors From Abuse?

by wifibandit in

i have it in spanish for now: .

1 de septiembre de 2017 a los cuerpos de ancianos asunto: protección de los menores contra el abuso.

please send this letter to me from any branch you have access to, in any language.

Island Man

I'm not sure crossing out paragraph 19 of chapter 12 of ks10 is a step in the right direction. On the surface, it appears to be but notice what is being crossed out:

If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal
decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision.

This is being replaced with:

they should be clearly informed about their right to file a complaint with the authorities.

Notice the elders aren't being told to make it clear to the parents that there are no sanctions for reporting. They're only mandated to tell the parents that it's their right to report to the police. Then the elders are told to not criticize anyone for making that decision.

I can well imagine elders comparing the new instruction with what they're being told to cross out to see what the difference is and, when noticing that the new instruction does not say to tell the parents there are no sanctions for reporting, might conclude that they should not tell this to the parents. So I can see a conversation going like this:

Elders: It is your right to make a report to the police if you so desire.
Parents: But would that bring reproach on the congregation? Would that affect our standing in any way?
Elders: All we can say is that it is your right to make a report to the police if you so desire.

Parents go away thinking that the elders are legally required to tell them that it's their right to report but that their unwillingness to say what effect such reporting would have on their standing, might be a subtle way of hinting to them, by omission, that they should not report because there will be adverse consequences, and that maybe they're legally barred from explicitly saying so.

They should have replaced paragraph 19 of chapter 12 of ks10 with:

Be sure to clearly inform the victim and/or their parent(s) that reporting the matter to the authorities is a moral responsibility and that there are no congregation sanctions for doing so. (Leviticus 5:1; Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:1-4)

25

Anybody watch Game of Thrones?

by shakyground in

jw
friends

i started watching game of thrones and it has become my fav tv show in a long time.

i may even read the novels.

i love fantasy novels and movies, i always tried not to like them and felt bad when a new book came out and always gave in and read it lol.

Island Man

I have only watched the first 3 or 4 episodes - a couple years ago - and never continued. I plan to start binge watching soon.

65

Today's Text - Justifying The Increase Of Annointed Ones!

by Divergent in

jw
friends

thursday, august 31. jehovah knows those who belong to him.—2 tim.

2:19.. in recent years, we have seen an increase in the number of those partaking at the memorial of christ’s death.

that trend contrasts with the decrease in the number of partakers that we saw for many decades.

Island Man

Their explanation for the increase is no explanation at all.

The number of partakers includes those who mistakenly think that they are anointed.

There has always been opportunity for persons to mistakenly think that they're anointed - even when the numbers were decreasing in the past. So why has there lately been an increase in those mistakenly thinking they're anointed?

Others may have mental or emotional problems that lead them to believe that they will rule with Christ in heaven.

There has always been opportunity for persons to have mental or emotional problems leading them to mistakenly think that they're anointed - even when the numbers were decreasing in the past. So why has there lately been an increase in those with such problems leading to them mistakenly thinking they're anointed?

What's the trigger that started the upward trend in the number of anointed? That's the real issue that they're not addressing. Why aren't they saying?

The true reason for the increase is a change in Watchtower doctrine. During the time of decline in partakers, they used to teach that the heavenly hope closed around 1935 and any new anointed ones were simply replacements for past anointed who were unfaithful. Then about a decade ago they revised this claim with new light saying they can't give a date for the end of the heavenly calling. I believe this revision in doctrine emboldened more JWs to claim to be anointed. This, however, would be embarrassing to Watchtower as it would clearly imply that JWs' acceptance of their heavenly calling was being hampered/compromised by Watchtower doctrine. It puts the organization in a bad light as being so controlling as to dissuade JWs from accepting their heavenly calling and only when the organization changed a teaching did more JWs feel comfortable enough to accept the calling.

Another way of looking at it is that the trend demonstrates that JW anointing is not an anointing by God but an anointing by men based on doctrine, that's why a change in doctrine radically changes the number of anointed. This is the very embarrassing and inconvenient truth that they're afraid to admit.

22

Demonic content being used in the "Remember the Wife of Lot" video?

by The Fall Guy in

sadly it's in german, but i've been reliably informed of the crucial relevance of the moon, butterflies, owls, geckos, & mirrors in spiritistic practices - all featured in the "slave's" offering!

perhaps someone with a knowledge of german can provide a more detailed analysis.. according to this guy's forensic examination of the video, it uses spiritistic practices and symbolism repeatedly.

far too much to be a coincidence?

Island Man

Demons aren't real. It's time to toss superstitious medieval religious thinking in the trash where it belongs. "Demonic" is an adjective that JWs and other superstitious theists band about indiscriminately to refer to anything that appears remotely scary or weird.

49

Let's talk about Blood again....

by stuckinarut2 in

i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.

something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.

an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?

Island Man

My argument against the blood ban is simple

1. BLOOD WAS CREATED TO FLOW IN THE VEINS. In fact, this is the very reason why blood is considered sacred and equated with life - because of its life-sustaining function as a medium for feeding and oxygenating all body tissue.

2. GOD IMPLICITLY APPROVES OF PEOPLE USING THEIR OWN NATIVE BLOOD IN THEIR VEINS. If he didn't he would require all his worshippers to slit their throats and bleed themselves to death in order to abstain from blood. But he doesn't require them to do this, even though he requires them to abstain from eating blood.

3. GOD DOES NOT APPROVE OF PEOPLE EATING THEIR OWN BLOOD. The scripture condemns eating "any sort of blood". This establishes that the source of the blood is irrelevant. It matters not whether the blood is your own or coming from a donor.

4. LOGICALLY, THEN, THE ISSUE HAS TO BE ABOUT THE USE TO WHICH THE BLOOD IS BEING PUT. Flowing in the veins is ok. Eating it as food is bad. Therefore blood transfusions are legit because they involve putting blood in the veins to do what it was created to do.

Ask a JW what's the difference between using your own native blood in your veins and getting it from a donor in a transfusion. They'll resort to the source argument. You then point out that source is irrelevant because scripture condemns eating any sort of blood and JWs aren't even permitted to transfuse their own blood back to themselves. Then maybe they'll give the reasoning that once it leaves the body it cannot be put back in. You simply respond by asking them why the organization allows the use of heart-lung machine and dialysis which involves the blood leaving the body and reentering. They'll say that it's different because the blood never stops flowing so the equipment functions as a continuation of the circulatory system. Then you ask them well will it be ok if you got transfused with a system that keeps the blood flowing from one person to another without stopping. Then they'll say that they're not here to argue and they'll leave. lol.

49

Let's talk about Blood again....

by stuckinarut2 in

i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.

something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.

an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?

Island Man

Good illustration. Another illustration I've seen is that of a country on the brink of defeat and destruction by the enemy, and the only hope of saving the country rests in the hands of one lone soldier who has only one option - use the national flag to create a molotov cocktail to destroy the enemy's weapon before it activates. Should the soldier value the sanctity of his country's national flag above the country itself? Should he let his country suffer destruction because its national flag is too sacred to be destroyed in process of defeating the enemy?

36

What is the watchtower going to do when

by pepperheart in

what is the watchtower going to do when the money runs out ??

?.

Island Man

They are running out of money. That's why they're scrambling with all the cost cutting measures recently. But I don't think they will ever really run out of money - not literally. What will happen is that they'll be forced to keep cutting costs until their expenses drop below their income.

This might mean that the organization as we know it today, will eventually cease to exist. It might wind up being just a skeleton of what it is today. Maybe just an office with a writing dept and an IT department and a few volunteers. All literature will be online. JWs worldwide will be encouraged to get touch devices to download and view Watchtower material. Elders will be made responsible to make printouts for publishers who cannot get access to a touch device. They may even institue mandatory tithing.

Island Man

Posts by Island Man

Circuit Overseer outlines (September 2017 to February 2018)