Posts by StarTrekAngel

5

I think he would make a good 'James Bond'. A thinking man's spy.

by Esse quam videri in

StarTrekAngel

I am really starting to like this guy. Would he ever know he has a fan base in the ExJW community.

14

We are on the stage for all mankind, why not urge all JW to witness it?

by James Mixon in

i would be proud to be on the stage to give a good witness to the world.. instead there is zip about the procedures in australia for the rf, they are clueless.. you would think the gb would be so proud for it's members to watch how they.

defend the truth.

correct me if i'am wrong but is there any thing on jw.org to indicate.

StarTrekAngel

Good point James. Mr Jackson's opening statement should be "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets."

Unless, off course, he doesn't have the truth and therefore he should be scared out of his pants

33

Ever wondered

by NoIdeaWhatToBelieve in

i was very hooked on the rc videos, really interesting to watch.

i started questioning stuff a couple of months ago.. however there is still a scenario that makes me wonder.

considering the israelites as god's chosen people and the kings as anointed, the bible shows many bad decisions the people made, including the rulers that were anointed.

StarTrekAngel

I once questioned the same things, as far as the possibility that Jehovah is ok with the org making mistakes, as he seemed to be ok with it in the past. That was until I decided to read the bible. Is so plain and simply put that it is impossible to ignore. You can only not see it if, commanded by the org, you refuse to "engage in independent study of the scriptures". Reading the bible on our own can lead to apostasy, says the WT. That alone should wake most people up but when you realize it doesn't, then you must questions what we are really following.

As far as the comments other have posted. Well they are totally right. I myself still believe in God. I am not a dogmatic person anymore, but I do believe. I respect those who don't and I am convinced that God does too. You see, we were once JWs, but we did not really understand the concept of "bearing witness". As JWs we are thought time and time again to put faith on someone's apparent appointment as the FDS but such individual can not "bear witness" of their appointment. In other words, they can not perform any kinds of supernatural act that will convince us that they indeed have God's approval. As JWs we fail to study, and therefore fail to understand, that such concept is plastered all over the bible. Yet, we will probably gravitate towards the "blessed are those who believe without seeing" very easily. Everything in context, you will realize that there is no faith without manifestation. In other words, there is no faith without the witness of works by the holy spirit. Yes, faith is an expectation for the future, but is based on the experiences of the past. Its sort of like your credit score.

So to sort of explain how I answered the same question to myself. I would be willing to accept the mistakes and imperfections of the org so long that they can proof that God has really appointed them. If God has forgiven them and continued to cast his blessings over the org, then it should be fairly evident. If such happened, then I would understand that whatever mistake was made, it was an honest one and they should be forgiven for it just like we are forgiven every day. As many pointed out here, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Simply compare the story of David. Just because David did a handful of sins, they do not overshadow the other good things he did. I am not justifying his actions, I am just comparing it to the modern idea of the "kingdom". If his were honest mistakes, then God will decide what to do with it. I am no judge on that and if David was alive today, I would not disagree with him paying for what he did under secular law. In the same context, Jesus spoke very clearly on how hypocrisy was more important to him than sins themselves. And this should be very easy to see, as the golden rule would apply to this. As JWs we tend to interpret the golden rule as something that only applies to good deeds. While it is true, it is also true that is a good ruler to measure wrong doing as well. Jesus never dismissed some of the things the Jews commanded as being wrong but he rather showed how they should not impose if they were not willing to do that themselves. Sure some of the rules were unjustifiable, like not healing on the Sabbath but in other cases he showed that the rule itself wasn't unreasonable, so long it was applied in the right context and so long the ruler was willing to apply the rule to himself.

If the prophet Nathan came today to speak to the GB and pointed out their flaws as he did to David, he will be Dfed on the spot.

Hope I make sense. If not, I can explain myself further

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

StarTrekAngel

I think I am finding debating with you to be very pleasant, event if we don't agree.

Before I express my interpretations of the evidence, I will remark that I was actually asking what your intention were, not how do you think you came across.

Sorry if it wasn't clear. Second hand English here. Learn to speak by watching movies and listening to the radio when I came to the US.

25

I wonder with all this sex abuse drama if Wt would ever apologize to Bill Bowen and Barbara Anderson.

by joe134cd in

wt obviously must realize now the value of those that tried to enforce change on them.

i think if it wasn't for these people doing what they did wt would be in even more drama now.

so my question is do you ever think wt would voluntarily reinstate and publicly apologize to bill bowen and barbara anderson for all their hard work in bringing reform.

StarTrekAngel

The answer is simple... their big brother, Jesus, never apologized to anyone. In keeping with the latest theme of assemblies (Imitate Jesus), we will imitate him faithfully and will not be apologizing to anyone.

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

StarTrekAngel

Fair enough Viviane. Thanks

If we extend the idea and consider the context of your participation in the thread, I may mention that you did not enter the thread discussing the matter at hand. You entered with a single line that read "Am I needed here?". With that in mind and your recent answer to me in this thread, I am having a hard time understanding if you meant to act as a moderator of the discussion or if you actually took a stand on the subject. Could you please clarify?

Thanks

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

StarTrekAngel

Viviane,

In another thread someone challenged a counter claim you made and asked for you to present evidence of your position. You stated that you would not provide such evidence and that he/she could go look it up him or her self. The said individual accused you of not having any evidence. You then proceeded to explain the difference between "can't" and "won't". Your explanation was clear (as it was also simple) but my question to you is, would you not be somewhat obligated to provide some references just like you requested from others in that same thread? I mean you did type things like "references please.." right underneath the quote of someone's claim. Don't get me wrong, you are very much entitled to make a claim and then claim that you have or seen evidence but decline to present it under the understanding that such evidence is of public domain. I, however, feel that there are certain generally accepted etiquette rules of debate that one should respect when willingly engaging in one. Could in not be concluded by an observer that you won't provide the evidence because you can't or don't really have it?

I am sincerely asking for your opinion in the context of this thread, as I find this subject to be of the most interest to me.

579

Won't get fooled again ...Moon Landing.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

so i was fooled by the witnesses.

what can i learn from that?

not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.

StarTrekAngel

The most extraordinary part of putting man on the moon or even just high earth orbit has to do with the hostility of the environment. Most of the rules of ultrasonic flight had already been somewhat mastered by 1969. The computer power part of it is almost irrelevant. Launching, not much of an issue. Launching = size matters. Every seen the Saturn V rocket in Houston? Yeah, sure. You have to be nuts to take the seat on a giant firecracker. Its nothing but a huge fuel tank. Escaping earth's orbit just takes a lot of energy. Don't let size be comparable to complexity because the rocket engines were just an evolution of the missile engines already in use at the time. Most of the body of the rocket would disappear in the atmosphere so they don't even have to bother to design it to withstand space for long. Just like a regular airplane must dump its fuel if it needs to make an emergency landing, because it was not structurally designed to withstand such landing.

Landing on the moon? Well is a lot easier to land on anything if you don't have to worry about weather and if you don't have to worry about gravity screwing you if you make a mistake. I know so because I use to fly gliders for sport and trust me, gravity and weather are far worst than elders when it comes to forgiving.

Now please don't get me wrong.. I am not saying that the above is achievable by just anyone. As you can see there is only a few very rich guys who have attempted at building something somewhat close to a spaceship. What I am trying to do is put the flight itself in perspective with the other challenges of space travel, which are much bigger. There are lots of issues, from safety, to hardware reliability (sorry, no spacecraft parts stores up there). For example, there is a certain area over the atlantic where computers begin to generate bit errors on memory, due to a certain type of radiation present there. This is more of an issue with orbiting spacecraft but it exemplifies what I mean. Computers have to be certified for space flight before they are chosen for mission. It is said that the this same anomaly causes astronauts to see bright spots on front of their eyes for a short period of time. Managing changing temperatures is another big issue. Astronauts often get burns, even with protection, as a result of handling tools and parts in space. The cockpit of the space shuttle is attached to the rest of the aircraft at only for anchor point, to help isolate heat from the cargo bay. This is the reason that the cockpit is seen tumbling apart from the explosion during the challenger incident. Reliability of the hardware is another big issue. Just like in airplanes, 90% of the dials and knobs you see are redundant of one another. Provided that a spacecraft has more controls than an airplane. Point being is that the minimum items required for flight are usually much more less than what you see in pictures. The rest is there for safety, redundancy and unforeseen issues. An airplane is quite similar in that respect. Airplanes can safely be flown (I've said safely, not comfortably) with just an altimeter and a airspeed indicator. If the weather is good enough and you have visual of an airport you are familiar with, the altimeter is almost useless ( I said "almost"). The airspeed indicator is what keeps you flying.

An astronaut must undergo a lot of training. The only ones that get to fly the craft are usually ex-military with previous flight experience. As in any other situation, there is adaptation time that they need to put in in order to get to know the aircraft, especially one as heavy, but they spent quite a lot of time training in safety. They are trained on landing the shuttle by taking a Gulfstream Jet, flying it with the rear landing gear down and the engine in reverse trusters. One heck of a flying brick if you ask me. How to respond to unforeseen events, spacial orientation, etc. In modern times, most of the training is also put on the actual goal of the mission (like repairing the Hubble), not on just getting to orbit. I can't remember the name of the fellow, but there was a space station astronaut (not the ISS, an older one) who went to sleep one night while in space. He woke up to find out his bed straps had become loose and he was floating in the middle of the craft, with no way to reach either side of it. He immediately panics because he doesn't know how to move from where he was. Good thing he was not sleeping naked.

I was going to open this paragraph saying "As you can see" but I don't want to sound like there are no holes in my narrative. I just hope that I made the big picture clear enough. I am a mechanical engineer by education but never got to actually do much in the field. I am in IT at present. Off course, to a rocket engineer, everything he does is simply common sense. So do not let your own "common sense" define your facts. I am willing to be corrected because I am not trying to hold a technical discussion here, I am just trying to contribute to the discussion.

If, in the other hand, we are going to consider the possibility of a hoax. Remember, no black and white thinking. If it was a hoax, not the whole thing had to be a hoax. If it is not a hoax, then not the whole thing had to be true.

27

Im curious. What kind of lifestyle the GB live?

by SecretSlaveClass in

anyone ever seen pictures or the actual houses and cars the gb own?

im wondering if the live a middle class lifestyle or more like high society?

StarTrekAngel

Yeah, not sure how lux their locations are, although very few probably know for sure. Lets not forget the outside does not define the inside. I used to work in an area of northern Mexico. There was this house that reminded me of the compound where they found Bin Laden. The outside looked like crap and it was located in a slum. But once you walked inside, there was nothing cheap about it.

The nice thing is that they have every need tended to. And by that you have to realize that is "every thing". Many have said that they also have accommodations for themselves in other world branches, but I can not offer any evidence of that. In our local circuit, the CO has two apartments. This way he can live closer to where the assignment is for that week. One of the houses is right next to an Assembly Hall (Recently built). He does not even bother to clean any of those places or even cut the grass. Our congos take turns doing the cleaning and caring for the yard. There is a WT Study edition, April 2014. There is a biography there of a man who became one of the many assistants to Knorr. You should read it and see the amount of people that are enslaved to these men for some of the most trivial of tasks.

Funny. the musicians that record the kingdom songs have to pay their way to NY twice a year and record for free, while the CO can not cut their little yard.

20

An Obvious Contradiction Mr Stewart is Missing

by cofty in

all jws on the stand have stuck to the same line that they have no problem with cooperating with mandatory reporting when state law requires it.. if the law does not require it then bible principles absolutely prevent them from taking away rights of the victim to report abuse to the police or not.. we have already heard from a jw rep a couple of days ago who proudly asserted that when the law conflicts with bible principle they will always obey the bible and quoted acts 5:29 "we must obey god rather than men".. please join the dots!.

StarTrekAngel

What I think that needs to be specifically addressed is the fact that they will comply with the law if the law is there. What I don't think they are being squeezed hard enough is as to when do they confirm that a crime has been committed. The two witness rule still applies. If there are not two witnesses to the event, then in their view, nothing happened and there is nothing to report. They are still in compliance, in their view and this will continue to happen.