StarTrekAngel

Joined

• started 174 topics
• posted 1,314 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by StarTrekAngel

• 
  55

  Just wondering who on this board has a spouse that is fully in and your awake?

  by goingthruthemotions in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i am just curious who on this board is in the same situation has i am?

  a spouse that is fully brain doogled in and you are awake to ttatt.. without going into serious detail and no names are given.

  i would like to possible talk with one of you all, it's just so helpful to communicate with someone in the same situation as me.. i am located in the southwest united states..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  I am fully awake.. wife is somewhat awake but insists on going to meetings and keeping up with the rituals. She still does not fully grasps the bad about the org. She feels that she can be there and not be harmed, basically denying 1 Cor 15:33. She feels that attending does not mean supporting the harmful policies and that most of the bad things are single bad actors or people seeking revenge on the org. She sometimes reads JW survey but can only focus on the angry comments by readers rather than the facts presented.

  Is harder to wake up fence seaters
• 
  11

  $13.5M award vacated in Jehovah’s Witness abuse case

  by StephaneLaliberte in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  ruling gives church chance to turn over disputed documents.

  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/apr/14/jehovahs-witness-lopez-sex-abuse-appeal/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  Sometimes I don't really understand some of these "judges". He thought that deposing Losch was unnecessary? Since when do you pre-judge wether a someone has or doesn't have anything insightful to offer? Isn't that the job of the lawyers to determine along with the judge?
• 
  20

  Lurking JWs: Do people really need to know and use the word "Jehovah" or other language equivalents, to truly know God?

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  watchtower puts forth the argument that you can't really know god unless you know and use the appellation "jehovah" or its equivalent in other languages.

  is this really true?

  i say it's not true and i will demonstrate to you why.. god's name is not a mere label that we have to use to communicate with him so that he knows we're talking to him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  Half Banana...

  I understand that to be the general context of bible writings. Wether you believe or not, analyzing the book, in my opinion, shows that God had to show himself to the world and prove himself as well. He could not expect people to know him without evidence. It was basically a response to the questions posed above (how do you get to know an invisible spirit). You can't. The invisible spirit would have to make himself known to you and then you may desire to know more and continue to nurture the relationship further. You can not love what you don't know.

  The bible has several passages in which people (Abraham was one of them), meet this God for what it seems the first time. True, the bible's first account of God talking to Abraham does not provide details of the communication. But later on, Abraham sees a man, whom he recognizes as God. Never the less, every other encounter like these from different biblical characters, are accompanied by some kind of "prove me that you are God and you are capable of delivering your promise". Some miracle that convinced men this God was who he claimed to be. Very much the same way you prove your credit worthiness by keeping your debt in check, God kept his worthiness by showing his followers what he was capable of, time and time again. This way he showed himself to the world and showed his followers he could very much fit the job of a God who claims to have created the universe.

  Having been absent from the human race for thousands of years (correct me if I am wrong but I don't think he's ever been absent for so long before) and having many generations of humans pass without testimony of his fame, God would have to present himself again and make himself known if he plans to have any followers for much longer.
• 
  20

  Lurking JWs: Do people really need to know and use the word "Jehovah" or other language equivalents, to truly know God?

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  watchtower puts forth the argument that you can't really know god unless you know and use the appellation "jehovah" or its equivalent in other languages.

  is this really true?

  i say it's not true and i will demonstrate to you why.. god's name is not a mere label that we have to use to communicate with him so that he knows we're talking to him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  We don't need to know an invisible spirit. He needs to become known to us. That is the whole premise of the bible.
• 
  20

  Lurking JWs: Do people really need to know and use the word "Jehovah" or other language equivalents, to truly know God?

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  watchtower puts forth the argument that you can't really know god unless you know and use the appellation "jehovah" or its equivalent in other languages.

  is this really true?

  i say it's not true and i will demonstrate to you why.. god's name is not a mere label that we have to use to communicate with him so that he knows we're talking to him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  Vanderhoven7. Do you have any good links that show credible evidence that YHVH never appears in the new testament? I am just looking for research sources.
• 
  20

  Lurking JWs: Do people really need to know and use the word "Jehovah" or other language equivalents, to truly know God?

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  watchtower puts forth the argument that you can't really know god unless you know and use the appellation "jehovah" or its equivalent in other languages.

  is this really true?

  i say it's not true and i will demonstrate to you why.. god's name is not a mere label that we have to use to communicate with him so that he knows we're talking to him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  In my view, the fact that Jesus called him "Father" rather than "Jehovah" doesn't really say much. Like others explained, the relationship being known, you would know exactly who Jesus was referring to when he said "father". In the same tone, using the name back then, again as many have pointed, was necessary due to the number of other Gods people had in those days. Nowadays, not only is this the most well known God (specially if you live in the western side of the planet) but also there are other religions that have began to adopt the name and therefore calling him Jehovah does not immediately isolate you from the rest anymore.

  Where JWs fail is in understanding the analogy of uniqueness that God seeks. Is like saying Elvis was your best friend or would be if he was alive, just because you know his name and use it. With so many Elvis impersonators around, would you be able to pinpoint exactly who you refer to by using only his name? Or do you need to show other evidence that makes him unique?

  If JWs grasped that concept, they would realize that is more important to say "our God" than it is to say "Jehovah" or even never use the generic term "God". It would be like naming your dog "Dog"
• 
  11

  Evolution is a Fact - Index for Numbers 1 - 30

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  #1 protein functional redundancycomparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things.. #2 dna functional redundancycomparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy.. #3 ervsendogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins.. #4 smelly geneshundreds of broken genes that used to code for olfactory receptors in our ancestors are still found in our genome.. #5 vitamin cwhy humans can no longer make their own vitamin c and what that tells us about our species' history.. #6 human chromosome 2our second biggest chromosome is made up of two of our ancestors' chromosomes stuck end-to-end.. #7 human egg yolk genehumans and our primate cousins have the genes for making vitellogenin and they are all broken in the same way.. #8 jumping genesbits of parasitic code called alu elements prove our common ancestry with primates.. #9 less chewing more thinkinga broken gene for a type of muscle fibre we no longer have tells a story about our evolutionary past.. #10 non-coding dnain common with many other species huge amounts of our genome originated as copying errors.. #11 tiktaalikan amazing fossil discovery illustrates the transition of life from sea to land.. #12 lenski's e.coli experimentan experiment with e.coli, now in it's third decade, demonstrates the power of natural selection.. #13 morris minor bonnetsevolution has to make do with building on existing designs as illustrated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve.. #14 joey goes to ozfossil evidence for the origins of marsupials found in antarctica exactly as predicted.. #15 robinson crusoethe biogeography of oceanic islands presents an impossible dilemma for creationism.. #16 aquatic mammalsan excellent sequence of fossils illustrates the evolutionary journey of whales from land to sea.. #17 belyaev's silver foxesa 50 year breeding programme demonstrates the amazing power of selection and the interconnected nature of genes.. #18 fish fingersthe evolution of limbs is mapped out in an amazing sequence of ancient fish fossils.. #19 goosebumpsa vestigial reflex bequeathed by our hairier ancestors.. #20 lucy in the sky...an exceptional fossil of a 3 million year old hominid.. #21 footprints in the sand...footprints at laetoli show our australopithecus afarensis ancestors were bipedal 3.6 million years ago.. #22 the hillocks of hiss...a vestigial feature if the human ear shared by 10% of the population demonstrates our evolutionary history.. #23 faunal succession...the consistent sequence of fossils found in the rocks can only be explained by evolution.. #24 the origin of your inner ear...how the bones that reptiles eat with became the bones that we hear with.. #25 deep time...scottish geologist andrew hutton discovered the proof of earth's great antiquity.. #26 colour vision...how gene duplication - new "information" -and mutation equipped us with trichromatic vision.. #27 monkeys, typewriters, shakespeare, 747s etc...evolution is a combination of random mutations and non-random selection.. #28 something darwin didn't say...a long term study of pigeons demonstrates how natural selection acts on a local population.. #29 use it or lose it...fossil genes reveal the history of modern species.. #30 your third eyelid...the remnants of a nictitating membrane reveals our evolutionary history..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  I remember a long time ago, while I was still hypnotized, reading in WT literature, where they claimed that DNA and proteins where like the chicken and the egg. The WT claims there can not make protein without DNA and you can not make DNA without proteins. They used this argument to show or explain that such paradox can only be explained by means of a creator. Off course, the statement itself could be totally false or constructed but... do you have any ideas as to what they could have been talking about?
• 
  17

  Is reasoning with a JW the answer?

  by Saved_JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  when i first left the watchtower society, i can remember being very eager to learn new information, especially information which pertained to discrediting the watchtower organization.

  i called it "the cage stage" .

  this excitement and newfound change in worldview completely rocked my world.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  If reasoning and critical thinking was not a problem, the org would not be so insistent on avoiding apostate material or any other information critical of the org. They know that there is a good chunk of members out there who have a weak shell (that is actually a good thing) and could be easily pierced. Provided they are willing to listen, even if just a little bit. With that said, emotions do play a big role and I did not want to accept it at first.

  I think emotions, however, can have a bit of logic built-in. Not as easy to dwell on as plain math where 2+2=4 no matter who you love or what party you are affiliated with. But you could call it the Barney principle. I love you, therefore you love me. But when one of those sides fails, then the logic is destroyed and the questions begin to raise. Once the emotions are removed, then the questioning can begin.

  Unfortunately, is much easier said than done.
• 
  15

  I like how it looks in other people but not for myself. A question specially for women.

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i like how it looks in other people but not for myself.. this is a phrase i have heard often from my wife.

  now i am to a point where i am trying to figure it out if this is something all women do or say.

  i can understand how you would say this if you were talking about a type of clothing that doesn't go with your figure, except that you may add the disclaimer... "if i had that figure i would wear this".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  I agree with most of your replies except that the part I don't understand is the lack of her making a more complete statement. Like I said, if she said that something is not suitable to her shape I would understand.

  Let me make an example with myself. I like tattoos and I would get one if I found one that I liked. In the same tone, I like those tribal tattoos that some bodybuilders do on their chest and extend to the shoulders.

  The way I see it, there is a difference between the following two statements.

  1) I like chest tattoos and I like how it looks in others but I would never get one

  2) I like chest tattoos but I don't get one because I don't have the muscle physique to carry one but If I did, I would consider getting one because I do like them

  In my view, the first statement tells me you don't really have a reason to refuse the option is everything is there. Wether it is your skin color, shape, heights or anything else, I can understand why but if you don't add the rest, I find it hard to understand why not. She makes statements similar to number one only. May be my problem is not assuming that she actually meant like number two but she never really verbalizes it, which still makes me mad because I would hope she would really tell me how she feels.
• 
  15

  I like how it looks in other people but not for myself. A question specially for women.

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i like how it looks in other people but not for myself.. this is a phrase i have heard often from my wife.

  now i am to a point where i am trying to figure it out if this is something all women do or say.

  i can understand how you would say this if you were talking about a type of clothing that doesn't go with your figure, except that you may add the disclaimer... "if i had that figure i would wear this".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  I like how it looks in other people but not for myself.

  This is a phrase I have heard often from my wife. Now I am to a point where I am trying to figure it out if this is something all women do or say. I can understand how you would say this if you were talking about a type of clothing that doesn't go with your figure, except that you may add the disclaimer... "If I had that figure I would wear this". This make it somewhat conditional but expresses your willingness to align your wardrobe with your taste.

  The way I understand my wife, she can simply admire how some dress or jewelry looks in other women but she would never wear it herself, even though there is no reason why it would not look good on her. Once again, I am trying to stick to the idea that there is no other reason (is not too short, not too plunged) other than the fact she would not wear, even though it looks "great" in other people.

  The latest instance on this come from a comment she made about a friends of hers. She is divorcing and she just got a small tattoo. I said that I've always wanted one and she said her tattoo looks good but that once again she likes how it looks on her but she would never get one herself.

  I am honestly confused and have always been confused about such statement. Hope someone, specially a woman, can help me understand it.

  Thanks