Posts by logansrun

I think I am remembering correctly, that it was scientists, who told us bacon was very bad for us, for some reasons, then it is not bad for us. Coffee was very bad for us then it wasn't. Milk, same thing, and many other food items and medicines, etc. I could be wrong but I do think it was scientists who were making those decisions.

This is so funny because this very subject was talked about in my psychology class a year ago. My proffessor was discussing how some people view scientists as "going back and forth about something" and the above example was given. He cleared things up by stating that, although scientists make mistakes, usually it is the media who reports on the findings that will blow it by using headlines that the scientist would never intend.

Also, think about your example. Do you really think this is a valid comparison? Do you really think that evolution is on that flimsy of grounds? You just cited a minor little matter when it comes to health and diet. Evolution is far, far more robust a theory than that. Although biologists disagree about the details (such as timing, exact mechanisms, phylogentic lineage) they are in near 100% agreement that evolution happens.

No offense, but you really, really need to investigate this much farther than you have.

Bradley

23

WT New light on Judicial procedure.

by caspian in

jw
friends

.

after the bizarre letter i posted on pornea here is another piece of the wt mind control, information service for circuit overseers.

logansrun

Jessica,

I didn't take your wording to offense at all. Actually, in retrospect, I agree that the whole thing is insane. I say things that would offend people all the time. I appreciated your comments

Bradley

23

WT New light on Judicial procedure.

by caspian in

jw
friends

.

after the bizarre letter i posted on pornea here is another piece of the wt mind control, information service for circuit overseers.

logansrun

metatron,

No one thinks the Society is more warped than me, but let's keep things in reality, shall we? The Society protects themselves too much and has made a quagmire of certain rules, but to say they absolutely "do nothing" about child molesters is a gross exaggeration, period. Nor are the men at the top as bad as you say.

Sorry, it's a big pet peeve of mine when people make outlandish claims about anybody. Keep it real. Know your facts.

B

23

WT New light on Judicial procedure.

by caspian in

jw
friends

.

after the bizarre letter i posted on pornea here is another piece of the wt mind control, information service for circuit overseers.

logansrun

Jessica,

Well, I was a "pathetic little dweeb" that confessed this a couple of years ago but, remember, I was under mind-control.

Actually, the funny thing is that I talked about what happened with my presiding overseer about two months before this "new light" came out. He was very understanding, told me to put it past me and simply was a nice guy about the whole matter. I thought I should step down from being an MS and he told me not to. I thought everything would be a-ok. I was wrong.

I was sitting in the MS/Elder meeting when the "new light" was read to us all. My heart sank. The CO even added a little of his own thoughts after he read the official statement by saying that he couldn't fathom "how any man could do such a despicable thing." Very loving man, indeed.

Well, I talked again with the PO afterword (he didn't even bring it up to me!) and this began a long process of finding out what happened exactly and all that. He asked the CO for more information and told him my story. The CO said he didn't know what to do. They called the Society. The first elder who answered didn't know either, but said he could call next week. Nice, real nice. My emotions were running on overdrive and here they couldn't even give me a direct answer. I've learned that everything with the society is an agonizingly slow process. It's called beaurocracy I guess.

Well, the word came back. It was a judicial matter and I would stand trial. It was quick and to the point. I was privately reproved and lost my "priveleges."

Fortunately, I started to go through doubts at the same time and a little over a year later saw the Society and Bible for what it is. Now I look back and laugh at how ludicrous the whole matter was.

In my defense I would have to say that the climate of social control and pressures put on me by the society were partly the reason why I did the thing in the first place. I was just like any normal, healthy 23 year old man who had a revved up sex drive. But, I was in a cult where the only way to release these feelings was by getting married. I didn't want to do that for many reasons. So, I wen't this route. (Since then I've had the real thing. Much, much better )

Also, this experience helped me realise how "human" the organization is and also how Pharisaically legalistic it is. The first elder I talked to, a respected man -- the presiding overseer! -- was very loving about the thing and didn't think it was judicial at all ( he reaffirmed this for me emphatically). But, everything changed when the mother church set out it's directives. I don't believe in the Bible any more, but if I did I would have to conclude that the first brother did the Christ-like thing.

This was a long winded post. Sorry.

Bradley

23

WT New light on Judicial procedure.

by caspian in

jw
friends

.

after the bizarre letter i posted on pornea here is another piece of the wt mind control, information service for circuit overseers.

logansrun

First, stuff like this is not so "shocking." Geez, it happens all the time and only those who are living in some Victorian fantasy-land will think it's not natural.

Secondly, in what way is it "public"? If it's between two people over the phone or internet it's not exactly "public." Calling it such is a stretch indeed.

B

35

Many Christians Preachers at war with Natural Science

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

i consider myself a christian and i think christian preachers who spout off against evolution and claim they are doing it to stay loyal to gods word.

are doing a disservice to the, christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable generation.

christians should be knowledgeable about this subject before they openly call persons who have scholarship in these subjects, as incorrect.

logansrun

Borgfree,

I cannot believe, for example, that such prouncements, like the rock being found in Alaska, or wherever it was, is a chunk of Mars. I do not believe there exists any technology that proves that "fact" no matter how sure the scientists are that it is a piece of Mars. I have used that example before, but there are many pronouncements like that, that have had to be changed over the years.

What do you think, scientists just pull this out of their asses? Do you even try to comprehend why they would make such statements? We have Martian rocks here on the planet Earth that were collected from probes that were sent to Mars and came back. All that is needed is to compare the composition of the rock found in Alaska with the Martian rocks collected already. What is so "unbelievable" about that?

Can you explain to me how your television or computer work? I doubt it. I can't tell you all the details or science behind every mechanism involved, but we don't think it's a miracle. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean that it's not true.

I take great exception to your implications of scientists as "changing facts" and that they are no better or any more trustworthy than theologians. I hate to say, but anyone that has taken just a couple introductory science courses in college or watches the Discovery channel will know how ludicrous this statement is. You seem to have a very poor grasp of the scientific method. For instance, scientists hardly ever proclaim that a finding is a "fact." On the contrary, findings are held to be more or less probable and always provisional. Religion, on the other hand, is generally static in nature and is totalistic in it's outlook (eg, "the Bible is the word of God and that's that!). Do yourself a favor and educate yourself in science before you make outrageous claims.

Bradley

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

logansrun

I believe FF Bruce translates John 1:1 as "...and the Word was what God was." I've heard a few scholars report that that is their prefferred way of translating that verse.

Bradley

72

Through everything... do you feel that you learned soemthing?

by anotheropenviewpoint in

jw
friends

i am new to the board and have read countless gripes and pokes at "the organization" but i fail to find one interesting question.. in preface... i was disfellowshiped myself over 5 years ago.

in that time, i had done much searching, visited many churches and faithes.. going to some for as short as one session and some as long as 6 - 8 months.

after i felt my search was in vein i stopped attempting to go to these shurches all together.. i never forgot how to pray through.

logansrun

From a psychological point of view, it would be quite natural for you to "feel at home" where you were raised. I don't see a metaphysical shred in anything you have said. It's all psychological.

Yes, I learned some good things as a JW. But I learned some false and some pretty stupid and perverse things as well (ie, that God will destroy 6 billion people in the near future). Maybe you went "over the top" when you left the JWs but my life has been A-okay. I don't smoke and am healthier pysically, emotionally and intellectually since I have been gone. I have absoultuely no desire to re-enter that quagmire.

Bradley

142

Do you believe in God now?

by Ron1968 in

.

this question has probably been asked before, but since i am a newbie, i wouldn't know.. anyway, i would like to ask if you believe in god or a higher power since becoming an ex-jw?.

ron

logansrun

Yet, confronted with a lack of evidence it would seem the default position would be to suspend belief, hence agnosticism is the most scientifically and logically correct viewpoint.

Oh please.... How is suspending belief the default position? This is just a cheap cop out to try to prove that atheists are intellectually superior to theists.

Oxnard, I totally agree.
The only "out" I see here is to emphasize "it would seem..." In that case, as a personal opinion, fine. Otherwise, to simply assert that agnosticism is "the most scientifically and logically correct viewpoint" is just plain and simple crap. Who in heaven or hell or on earth has such insight and authority as to say what my "default position" should be?

Craig No. From a purely logical and scientific standpoint, agnosticism is the default position. There is no getting around that. Let me explain. There is no definitive proof for God's existence or non-existence, even many theists will admit this. That being said, from a strictly logical and scientific standpoint, there must be a suspension of belief in anything that hasn't been proven or disproven. Think about the possibility of intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. Is there any proof? No, not yet. Can anyone say they have proof we are the only life forms in the universe? Again, no. Now, some scientists have opinions on the matter -- leaning one way or the other -- but they will not state definitively that it is a guarantee that aliens do or do not exist. Now, replace "aliens" or "intelligent life" with the word God. The exact same could be said verbatim. Again, this is from a scientific point of view, not one one's personal inclinations are, whether based on emotion or reason. The problem is that most theists, especially of the fundy-Christian variety, will say that they have PROOF that God (their God!) exists. The rational person, even if they lean towards theism, will not be so bold. I sometimes consider myself an agnostic with theistic inclinations, but I cannot say God exists for a fact. So, in short, my statement wasn't "plain and simple crap." Actually, to say that it was such is. Bradley