Posts by Abaddon

17

No such thing as Ghosts...

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

i remember this article from when it came out; found it whilst looking for info on low frequency sound, it's very interesting, but was ignored by-and-large by the spook community as it's less rimantic than dead grandpa's.. .

http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/huma.html.

monday 29 june 1998 .

Abaddon

Of course, if god, or a ghost appeared to me, I would believe.

What I would believe would vary; if there were a scientific explaination I was happy with, then I would believe that, not in the traditional idea of god's or ghosties that I had engaged with due to a disconnected experience.

If it was like in 'God, the Devil and Bob', then I'd believe in god!

Are those of you who are 'pro-ghosties' (I'm ambivalent/bored/mildly interested) afraid of dying or unafraid of dying?

I see it as a disappointing eventuality, the ultimate bedtime... 'Oh, go on, five minutes more', that sort of thing. No point of being scared of death. It would be like being scared of the word 'and'. Pointless.

Sirona; A bad'un, yup, as well as the mystical bollocks from the Bible and a character from a book... I LOVE the idea of reincarnation, but where's the proof??

unclebruce; I agree, as Sirona touched on earlier, that paranormal is often just normal we don't have an equation for YET. Maglev, internet, lasers would all be very fucking paranormal to a 14th C yokel.

Mindchild; Hubble bubble; now I have a name for my bong...

8-)-~

I don't think Buddhism is especially good for Science, not if you look at it carefully. It's still a load of unsubstansiated whistful bollocks, based upon an entirely unappatising premise (anihilation of self, although that's a pipe-dream in the practical life of a Buddhist) and an originating mythos of the silliest nature.

If religion is the exercise of faith, then there is no good religion for Scientists, as science is the demonstration of proofs and speculation on theories that might allow other proofs to be demonstrated.

Of course, Scientists can be religious, but I think their Scientific mind and their faith are kept in different boxes.

I suppose a Unitarian Universalist or Humanitarian are pretty non-contradictory beliefs for Scientists, as well as philosophical non-literal practice of older faithways.

Example; I'm a Christian, philosophically, but I don't believe in God or Christ as such.

Keep on rocking in the free world...

4

Some say I'm guilty , Dubs say I will rot...

by NEWWORLDSLACKER in

jw
friends

i have a really weird feeling like something big has changed , .

my savior is blood guilty , .

and this sinner is now a saint .. received the bad news this morning , .

Abaddon

I like this, and normally my reaction to poetry is 'Oh... god...', and having finished a couple of years of Eng Lit, that's a fairly informed opinion.

I do think it scans more like a song, you know, NIN, MArylin MAnson kind of thing...

(Chur-duh chu-duh da-da-da-da-dah-dah!)
(Chur-duh chu-duh da-da-da-da-dah-dah!)
I have a really weird feeling like something big has changed (da-da-da-da-dah-dah!)
my savior is blood guilty , and this sinner is now a saint (da-da-da-da-dah-dah!)

Keep on rocking in the free world...

81

Education Survey

by larc in

jw
friends

education was strongly discouraged among the witnesses.

i am curious as to how many of you went on for further education and in what fields.

i will go ahead and list the ones i already know.. larc - advanced degrees in organizational psychology.

Abaddon

I just completed my first degree... at 35!

I was doing a BSc. in Education & Secondary Science (with QTS), fulltime at University. I did three of four years at 2.1.

I then had to work, and have just completed two years of part-time study in English Literature which gives me enough for my degree.

I guess you'd call it a BSc. in Science & Education as Majors and a Minor in English Literature, so it's a bit messy, and thus quite me.

I might do a year-long course to give me QTS (Qualified TEacher Status) either in Holland or England, but will have to wait a couple of years for my girlfriend to finish Conservatory.

Keep on rocking in the free world...

32

Was Jesus a False Prophet?

by JosephAlward in

the bible says that a prophet who predicts something that does not occur is speaking words that the lord did not speak, but that is exactly what jesus did, if you can believe the author of mark.

here are the relevant verses:.

"when a prophet speaks in the name of the lord, if the word does not come about or come true, that is a word which the lord did not speak;" (deuteronomy 18:22).

Abaddon

logical; Change your handle if you are going to post stuff like this;

Well... a lot of the bible was written by man, hence prone to errors. The sooner people realise this, the better. Is this a reason why Jah writes the law upon the hearts of his true servants? Because the written scripture has been added to / taken from / changed.
2 Timothy says all scripture is inspired etc etc... which is TRUE! However, much of the bible is COMPILED BY MAN. Plus the above point relating to scripture. Do not put your trust in earthling man.

Okay, so are you seriously saying that God, Jah, whatever, the creator of the Universe, cannot ensure that an accurate record of his peoples' history and his desires for our conduct and plans for the future reaches us? That essentially the guide to life we've been given is 'inspired of god' but 'useless as it's compiled by man'. Please!

logical, you probably get PERSONALISED MAIL from companies YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF that have been TAILORED TO YOUR PERSONALITY TYPE AND SHOPPING HABITS. It's not that difficult a task to deliver accurate messages.

If our behaviour affects out future, then it is god's responsibility, if he/she/it exists, to make sure we are made aware of this as a certainty, no grey areas or doubts. However, all we have is a vast grey area over IF god exists, WHAT god is like, WHAT god wants.

If god does not prove his existence and make clear its desires for us as individuals, and act in a way that impairs our future, it is god's fault. If god willfully allows us to act in ignorance, then god is not loving.

God could prove that he/she/it exists. The fact he/she/it does NOT shows that;

a) There is no god

or

b) If there is a god, it doesn't care about us or we are irrelevant to it (i.e., it's not about us, we are incidental) and the Bible and other holy books are unconnected with it.

or

c) There is a god, the Bible is right, but god likes being ineffable and hiding his existence from the world, and is essentially an asshole.

Keep on rocking in the free world...

24

When JWs used to have FUN!!!

by Amazing in

jw
friends

when i started associating in the late 1960s the jws were very sociable and had frequent fun events.

here are some examples of the kinds of events we enjoyed, why they existed, and then the reason they were taken away:.

sports: being involved in school or professional sports was frowned upon, so the brothers in the hall would arrange for sports for every other weekend.

Abaddon

To be honest, it is one area where I 'miss the collective', as in the Unity of Borg minds.

The fun times as a Witness were the get-togethers. I wish I could have one now; nothing to do with the Borg, but just an extended group of families and friends having fun together. A sense of community, no matter how illusory it may have been on other levels.

I was born in '65, and they diminished in frequency. They became rare, the rarer.

The Borg; fun vampires.

Keep on rocking in the free world...

17

No such thing as Ghosts...

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

i remember this article from when it came out; found it whilst looking for info on low frequency sound, it's very interesting, but was ignored by-and-large by the spook community as it's less rimantic than dead grandpa's.. .

http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/huma.html.

monday 29 june 1998 .

Abaddon

"I think that those who believe in science should just accept, that MAYBE, just maybe when they die they will find themselves on the "other side" looking at God, for no scientific, explainable reason in particular."

That is one possibility I accept, but maybe not the way you think.

If god does exist, or god's exist, and our conduct now affects our treatment then, they are a bunch of assholes. It is unfair to go to the efort of making it IMPOSSIBLE to prove you exist, and then to punish people for not believing in you, when if you'd let the obvious be, er, obvious, rather than coming over all ineffable EVERYONE would believe in you because of the simple fact it was a, er, fact.

Such a scenario would work out like this;

God/s; "Well, you have displeased me."

Abaddon; "You ass... *zap*

God/s; Next!

I don't seriously think this will happen though, as it is illogical. If god exists and cares, it wouldn't be a question of faith whether god existed. It's all along the lines of 'the dinosaur bones were put there to fool scientists' otherwise.

"Talking of ignorance, whos REXB13?"

You'd have to have read more of his posts to realise how funny that sentence is. Fundy, file under 'rabid', will chapter and verse but knows shit about science. Sure he's a nice man, but he gets on my tits. In a way, talking of Rex IS talking of ignorance.

Keep on rocking in the free world...

16

Cough Cough, Splutter Choke, Gruuugh Bleah!

by Englishman in

jw
friends

how do you feel about people who smoke in public places such as bars and restaurants?

if i complain about smokers in my pub, they say: "it's a pub, what do you expect?".

i can't see the reasoning here.

Abaddon

"I would estimate that about 80% of the regulars are smokers... I reckon smoking will be verboten in most British pubs within the next 5 years"

Which is why it sucks.

I mean the ONLY reason that smoking HAS been banned in the US even in bars etc, is because of the people who work there and the threat of litigation.

I do think the rationalisations you give for smokers are bunk in younger people. Like most drugs, people do it 'cause they like it.

Unfortunately, the 'like' with tobacco is buggered up by nicotine addiction.

I am giving up at the moment, but am hampered by the fact I'm doing it 'cause my girlfriend is giving up, needs to as she's a classical singer, and I'm helping.

It's been okay; I normally only smoke in bars or pubs. If I smoked it was at home as a joint with hash or grass. I did this often enough to make me think I was addicited to pot and not to tobacco!

I now know I like pot LOTS, but am not addicted, but did have a minor dependancy on tobacco. Funny eh?

I miss smoking joints; bongs are nice, but I like spliffs. Whether that's a physical thing, as in the ceremony and process, or tobacco crazing, I don't know.

But I am in week three or four and have had tobacco maybe once or twice a week in that period instead of everyday. And now I have run out of tobacco, so...

Keep on rocking in the free world...

17

No such thing as Ghosts...

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

i remember this article from when it came out; found it whilst looking for info on low frequency sound, it's very interesting, but was ignored by-and-large by the spook community as it's less rimantic than dead grandpa's.. .

http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/huma.html.

monday 29 june 1998 .

Abaddon

Interesting discussion Sirona.

I didn't mean to take the sentence that I quoted out of context, and was thinking more of the sentence abstractly than any assertion you might have been making, as the sentence seemed emblematic of a mindset. As indeed it is, even if it's not yours!

As for deciding whether my beliefs are better or worse than others, or whether I have the right to ridicule those beliefs I find ridiculous, well...

I agree that everyone has a right to believe what they want, provided it doesn't harm anyone. Even those that believe things harmful to other people have a right to that belief, but if they act on those beliefs they also have a right to be locked away.

I respect someone's right to hold an opinion. But, by the fact I believe everyone has a right to an opinion, I too have a right to an opinion. And sometimes that opinion will be "That's ridiculous".

Yes, I do think that a scientific opinion will more often than not be better than an unscientific opinion. Because scientific opinions SHOULD be objective, verifiable, repeatable, quantifiable. Obviously, they don't always have those characteristics. But they do, more often than subjective personal opinion.

Personal subjective experiences are just that; subjective. If they can't be repeated or proved why should I base my belief structure on them? The person that had them can!

Maybe I've not explained what I mean clearly... we all have our subjective realities. You, me, everybody.

Some people have experiences in their subjective realities which they interpret in a way I find objectively unprovable.

For example; someone notices lots of weird events in the house, breezes, lights being on in the morning when they were off at night, noises, etc. Their grandfather died two weeks ago. Therefore it is grandpa.

I say, fine, that's your belief. I don't share it, but I am sure you are genuine and experienced those things and believe genuinely that it was your grandad.

What's wrong with that? I REALLY mean it, although, just as some scientists are fraudulent, so are some people asking for subjective belief.

I know from experience that when you say it, the person normally doesn't listen to the fact you are accepting their reality, as they are too busy trying to get you to accept their reality as your reality based on their say-so and nothing else. And that bugs me. Lay of my subjective reality, I'll lay off yours I suppose is a way of putting it.

It's the faith thing, isn't it? Take Rex B13 as an example. If you could offer definative proof of evolution and the absence of god, he would still 'believe' as he's had his proof by subjective experience, and all the Science papers in the world won't change that. Shelby seems to genuinely believe she has her little chats with god. Well, I think she's probably mad, but I'm sure she doesn't THINK she's making stuff up. When they parade their glowing subjective opinons, as thogh they were gospel, one does feel a certain need to ask them for objective proof, but it's POINTLESS (although sometime fun if it's slow at work).

You seem to say that one should not view other beliefs as better or worse than your own. Is that right? If it is I disagree.

Fancy a witch trial? Or, maybe we should rip a few hearts out of Prisoners-of-Wars, like the Aztecs did, to make sure the sun carries on rising. Yes, extreme examples.

How's about Scientologists? I know a fair bit, and I think that is one of the silliest religions ever designed for profit by a Sci-Fi author, but what do I know, I'm not 'Clear', and am probably just being reactive (amazing similarities between Scientology and Buddism on some levels).

But Mormons, well, Elohi, or whatever, is on his planet with lots of wives, making spirit babies that come to Earth, and if you're a good moron (whoops... my spelling... ) you'll get your own planet and harem. I really don't think I have to GIVE my opinion of how STUPID that is.

It's not just religion either; see the post about smoking. And the nature/nurture debate. Anyone on either one side or the other is an obvious fool as it's obviosuly BOTH, to one extent or the other.

Eugenics? Nasty dangerous stuff. Genetically Modified Food? We've been doing it for centuries, there's far more worrying things going on.

We do it (evaluating beliefs as better or worse) everyday all the time, and if we are to find anything approaching a personal truth or paradigm for life, we HAVE to evaluate beliefs in this way.

Otherwise you end up like my mate Neil, who is so open-minded at times his brain falls out.

It's not being nasty, it's just finding your way; we all(ish) found our way out of the Borg and think it is WRONG. All that is doing is defining one belief as worse than the multiplicity of beliefs we now all hold.

In the end, most beliefs are not 'better' or 'worse', but are basically the same as far as their affect on your life goes. But that should not make us lazy and over accepting of whatever is represented as the 'truth'. Otherwise the ones that are better or worse can bite you on the arse.

Keep on rocking in the free world...

16

Cough Cough, Splutter Choke, Gruuugh Bleah!

by Englishman in

jw
friends

how do you feel about people who smoke in public places such as bars and restaurants?

if i complain about smokers in my pub, they say: "it's a pub, what do you expect?".

i can't see the reasoning here.

Abaddon

"I can't see the reasoning here. If smoking is banned at the cinema, workplace, wherever, why is it OK for smokers to inflict their nasty pong on people who enjoy a beer sometimes?"

Because smoking ISN'T banned in the pub you frequent.

Simple answer, but an accurate one.

Why should someone not smoke if they are somewhere it is allowed to smoke?

I think it is really unreasonable to expect people not to do things they are allowed to do. If you have a beef, beef to the landlord. If it is anyone's fault, it is his, as he or she hasn't banned smoking.

AH, but maybe most people in the pub DON'T mind that much. Maybe the number of people who would stop going if they banned smoking is greater than the number of people who they would gain as customers. How terrible... market forces, a two-edged sword...

Cinema's, workplaces and planes you are sat down, no escape, it is justifiable to go ban smoking.

But in places you can move round a corner, sit in a non-smoking section, or elect not to go to and to patronise an establishment which bans smoking I think that non-smokers are the ones who are being unreasonable by seeking bans against smoking in public places.

The point of view 'smokers are inconsiderate' can be turned right around, and only really works if you are prepared to accept smoking is less good than not smoking. Why should smokers suffer the inconvenience of not smoking due to some inconsiderate non-smokers?

To some non-smokers, public place seems to mean 'somewhere I go and have absolute right to make sure everyone behaves like I do'.

Nice, very nice... how... free....

Keep on rocking in the free world...

17

No such thing as Ghosts...

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

i remember this article from when it came out; found it whilst looking for info on low frequency sound, it's very interesting, but was ignored by-and-large by the spook community as it's less rimantic than dead grandpa's.. .

http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/huma.html.

monday 29 june 1998 .

Abaddon

Hi Sirona;

Don't get me wrong; people are allowed to believe what they want. I have friends I love and respect who believe stuff I think is just plain silly.

What I object to is people acting like they have been accused of lying because their personal subjective reality is not accepted as scientific proof. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I saw aliens, god or ghosts, unless I could verify it or prove it in some way, so why should anyone else get a break?

Generally people offering subjective, unverifiable, non-repeatable evidence as proof of god, ghosts, ickle baby Jesus, healing, etc., do not have a great level of scientific knowledge, or are parrotting seemingly valid arguement by apologists that they do not fully understand, but are seizing on eagerly as a validation of their beliefs.

That's an observation, not a criticism. If God spoke to me, I'd probably believe it even if I couldn't prove it to anyone! So I'm not saying people who believe such things are stupid, just maybe sometimes that they don't understand why their beliefs are not accepted by the more scientifically minded.

I have to say I'd LOVE to see a good explination of what you mean by;

"in order to "see" ghosts you must raise your own vibrational level".

This just sounds like something that people who have seen ghosts say to those that haven't. It's an unanswerable retort as it stands, as it means nothing in scientific terms.

It's just a phrase borrowed from physics and applied to the paranormal in the same way that chunks of science terminology are borrowed and formed into convincing yet meanless sentences in Star Trek... 'Captain, if we don't get the flux capacitence of the Wharp Core down we're going to have a cascading chain reaction overflowing the buffers and the entire engineering area will be flooded with Thoron radiation.'

Sounds great! Means NOTHING.

It's very simple, and has been done for centuries, with changes over the vocabulary over time to keep the trick working. Shamans. Snake Oil salesmen. Fortune Tellers, etc..

Again, I have to emphasize Iam not saying that the people using this langauge are always conciously aware of what they are doing. They are quite probably genuine in their beliefs; look at what we all believed once!

I'd love it if I could find one shred of proof for the paranormal. I love the idea of mind powers. I love the idea of existence after death. I just can't find one piece of decent evidence. There are areas that have a 'might be scientifically proved in a few decades' hanging over them... but they are far and few between...

Keep on rocking in the free world...