Are ther any JW's in this group?
Chris
I just found this newsgroup today, and I am a JW. I have been reading a few
of the messages, and I have seen a lot of false teachings, and things that
JW's would be able to easily say why they are false.
I was wondering if there were any JW's here? or just people of Christendom
trying to discourage our faith in the truth?
Please email me at home ch...@computernik.com or at work
Chris....@NesbittBurns.com or email both if you want.
I want to send my love to all my brothers and sisters if you are out there.
Regards,
Chris
Jabriol
A clasic example of what a brother would do when he gets on the net.
he runs a search engine, and anything with a JW on it, he thinks it is
legit.
there are many jw's on ARJW. mostly are lurkers. ARJW has become a heaven
for Bashers against our religion. IF you want to join a private list let me
know.
Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
South Camden Spanish
Powwow: jab...@cris.com
webphone: jab...@cris.com
Christ's Witness/zygo
jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just found this newsgroup today, and I am a JW. I have been reading a
> few
> > of the messages, and I have seen a lot of false teachings, and things
> that
> > JW's would be able to easily say why they are false.
> >
> > I was wondering if there were any JW's here? or just people of
> Christendom
> > trying to discourage our faith in the truth?
> >
> > Please email me at home ch...@computernik.com or at work
> > Chris....@NesbittBurns.com or email both if you want.
> >
> > I want to send my love to all my brothers and sisters if you are out
> there.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris
>
> A clasic example of what a brother would do when he gets on the net.
> he runs a search engine, and anything with a JW on it, he thinks it is
> legit.
>
> there are many jw's on ARJW. mostly are lurkers. ARJW has become a heaven
> for Bashers against our religion. IF you want to join a private list let me
> know.
Quite frankly, I don't understand the Jehovah's Witnesses! On one hand they
come to ours doors, proclaiming they have the absolute truth of God's Word.
On the other hand, if we as Christians counter with what we believe is the
truth, we become bashers!?*@#$ The Watchtower, Mar. 15, 1986 says on page 12,
"If we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the
test." Well, we are a test in a way of your truth. Likewise, you are a test
for our truth. We all seek it, I believe. This is a forum of debate of that
truth. Maybe my side will not "beat" your side, or your side will not "beat"
my side, but those who lurk here are the fertile minds which will decide who
is right. For all of us [present believers] it would be hard to change our
minds, for them it is easy as who has the most probible argument. If we are
the "hell" bound "evil" workers of Satan, who bash your "truth" what are you
afraid of? The truth stands for itself, whoever possesses it! And Satan
cannot overcome it.
Christ's Witness (Acts 1:8)
Edward
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Thammuz
I don't know how many actual JWs there are reading this ng, but the
majority of people I have talked to/read in the last week I have viewed here
are those who have been disfellowshiped/disassociated, like I. I don't think
there is any active attempts to discourage your faith, just some people
trying to collect together what they believe now that they are away from the
Society, or those who want to vent any issues they may have had leading up
to their parting ways. I doubt you will find anything here but frustration,
but feel 'free'.
Regie Satanas,
Thammuz
** Legga Lamb **
Chris <Chris....@NesbittBurns.com> wrote in article
<t0IE2.11611$134.112733@tor-
: I was wondering if there were any JW's here? or just people of
Christendom
: trying to discourage our faith in the truth?
$$$ Your faith is not in the "truth",... it's in the WT Corporation.
: :
: I want to send my love to all my brothers and sisters if you are out
there.
$$$ Even the DF'd and DA'd ones or just the still-suffering slaves?
--
Carol....
"Is boneless chicken considered an invertebrate?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
: Chris
:
:
** Legga Lamb **
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7c0bu2$h...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
: there are many jw's on ARJW. mostly are lurkers. ARJW has become a
heaven
: for Bashers against our religion. IF you want to join a private list
let me
: know.
*** And on the list are all JW's who agree with each other, can't think
for themselves, never ask any serious questions about the WT or it's
crazy beliefs.... YAWNNN :-O
--
Carol....
"Is boneless chicken considered an invertebrate?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:
: Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
: South Camden Spanish
:
** Legga Lamb **
Christ's Witness/zygo <zy...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
: Quite frankly, I don't understand the Jehovah's Witnesses! On one
hand they
: come to ours doors, proclaiming they have the absolute truth of God's
Word.
: On the other hand, if we as Christians counter with what we believe
is the
: truth, we become bashers!?*
*** The very first JW's I ever let in my door BASHED the religion of
both my Mother (Lutheran) and my Father (Catholic) and even with the
carefully WT taught diplomacy they were "insulting." Had I been a bit
older and wiser I would have booted them back out the door right then.
@#$ The Watchtower, Mar. 15, 1986 says on page 12,
: "If we have the truth, we have nothing to fear.
*** Then they must be shaking in their shoes....
--
Carol....
"Is boneless chicken considered an invertebrate?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:
: Christ's Witness (Acts 1:8)
: Edward
Mark Sornson
>
>
> *** The very first JW's I ever let in my door BASHED the religion of
> both my Mother (Lutheran) and my Father (Catholic) and even with the
> carefully WT taught diplomacy they were "insulting." Had I been a bit
> older and wiser I would have booted them back out the door right then.
But you didn't boot them back out the door. In
fact, you invited them in, and associated with them
for years and years. So there must have been something
about their approach that you approved of (at the
time).
Though you say you were never baptized (you did
say that to me), you attended meetings for many years.
If they really were so insulting all the while,
you must really have been a glutton for punishment.
In honor of your father or your mother, are you
now a Lutheran or a Catholic [given that it's
hard to be both]? If you are neither, why do you
reject them (and how do you explain your rejection
of either faith without bashing the other)?
-mark.
campb...@my-dejanews.com
Mark:
I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the Catholic
religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents. When I first
heard my inlaw making negative comments, I was a little put off, and later
mentioned that my parents and family was Catholic. I thought that was a
discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be offensive.
However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she is
either rude or insensitive.
This brings me to the second point about rejecting faiths without bashing
them. Like Carol, I have rejected the faith I was raised in. I don't think
that is an uncommon occurrence, as we get older we find spiritual meaning in
ways that might be different from our parents. That doesn't mean that I
disapprove or think my parent's religion is wrong or evil, it just means it
is not for me. By rejecting, one is not necessarily bashing. My parents
couldn't care less what my religious affiliation is. Some of the JW's I have
noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want to
criticize everybody elses. They also seem to take it as a very serious
offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.
Steve Champagne
> Some of the JW's I have
> noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want to
> criticize everybody elses. They also seem to take it as a very serious
> offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.
That's terrible! I mean, whatever happened to the good 'ole spirit
of "live and let drink blood"......?
For whatever reason no one ever criticizes *my* religion. And I
can't tell you how left out I feel, not having the same opportunities
that others have to take offense with criticism of "their" religion!
Could someone out there please shake a stick at me or throw some
stones or something? I just want to see what it's like to have my
religion criticized and require internal gasket repair therein.....
--
I know we're the same because I hurt when I hurt you
and feel good when I treat you as though you are me.
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 2 lines, 106 characters
campb...@my-dejanews.com
Steve Champagne <ia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Some of the JW's I have
> > noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want to
> > criticize everybody elses. They also seem to take it as a very serious
> > offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.
>
> That's terrible! I mean, whatever happened to the good 'ole spirit
> of "live and let drink blood"......?
>
> For whatever reason no one ever criticizes *my* religion. And I
> can't tell you how left out I feel, not having the same opportunities
> that others have to take offense with criticism of "their" religion!
>
> Could someone out there please shake a stick at me or throw some
> stones or something? I just want to see what it's like to have my
> religion criticized and require internal gasket repair therein.....
>
>
worshippers. They have everything wrong. Anyone who would be a (insert
religion here) is surely going to burn in hell. Lets get a pile of stones,
round up all the (insert religion here) and get rid of them once and for all.
Consider a stick shaken at you, stones thrown and aspersions cast your way.
(metaphorically speaking)
;)
--
> I know we're the same because I hurt when I hurt you
> and feel good when I treat you as though you are me.
> ~
> "Steven R. Champagne" 2 lines, 106 characters
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Steve Champagne
>> Could someone out there please shake a stick at me or throw some
>> stones or something? I just want to see what it's like to have my
>> religion criticized and require internal gasket repair therein.....
>>
>You know, those evil (insert your religious group here) are really devil
>worshippers. They have everything wrong. Anyone who would be a (insert
>religion here) is surely going to burn in hell. Lets get a pile of stones,
>round up all the (insert religion here) and get rid of them once and for all.
>
>Consider a stick shaken at you, stones thrown and aspersions cast your way.
>(metaphorically speaking)
Thank you! I feel so much better now!!!! ((((()))))
Steve Champagne
Steve Champagne
>Thank you! I feel so much better now!!!! ((((()))))
Ooops... sorry for all the repetition... the news server kept
saying this post didn't make it.... guess it didn't know its left
port from its right....
~~ Froggy Nite ~~
Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
<36E4EF52...@zk3.dec.com>...
: ** Legga Lamb ** wrote:
: >
: But you didn't boot them back out the door. In
: fact, you invited them in, and associated with them
: for years and years.
$$$ Unfortunately yes. And I'm glad I never got baptized and sold
literature and harmed even more people. Some became my good friends
but as you can guess they felt about the WT/GB as I did.
So there must have been something
: about their approach that you approved of (at the
: time).
$$$ Their approach? I was a lonely housebound new mother and they
were company. Don't ever say they don't BASH other religions because
they do... it's part of the indoctrination they use to get you involved
with their own false religion.
:
: Though you say you were never baptized (you did
: say that to me), you attended meetings for many years.
$$$ No one there forced me to be baptized. And I only attended the
meeting when I had nothing better to do as I found them boring,
tedious, juvenile, repetitious and mind numbing for the most part.
: If they really were so insulting all the while,
$$$ Where did I say "all the while?"
: you must really have been a glutton for punishment.
$$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the society
stunk as far as I was concerned.
:
: In honor of your father or your mother, are you
: now a Lutheran or a Catholic [given that it's
: hard to be both]?
$$$ I'm neither as I believe in evolution and the freedom from religion
that provides. :o)
If you are neither, why do you
: reject them
$$$ Because I don't believe the Bible and all the fairy tales in it.
And all religion is based on these fairy tales about this no-show God.
(and how do you explain your rejection
: of either faith without bashing the other)?
$$$ I could care less what either believes as I am free of all that
religious nonsense now.
--
Carol....
"Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:
: -mark.
:
~~ Froggy Nite ~~
campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<7c3l09$lng$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
: Mark:
: : I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the
Catholic
: religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents.
$$$ The JW's I knew bashed all religions and had many reasons why each
was false, bad, and harmful.
: I thought that was a
: discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be
offensive.
$$$ They usually don't/can't take the hint.
: However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she
is
: either rude or insensitive.
$$$ She's brain washed and probably can't stop the insults.
:
: This brings me to the second point about rejecting faiths without
bashing
: them. Like Carol, I have rejected the faith I was raised in. I
don't think
: that is an uncommon occurrence, as we get older we find spiritual
meaning in
: ways that might be different from our parents.
$$$ In my case evolution as it at least makes sense and is not a multi
billion dollar business run by discreet slaves or whatever.
That doesn't mean that I
: disapprove or think my parent's religion is wrong or evil, it just
means it
: is not for me.
$$$ Exactly.
By rejecting, one is not necessarily bashing. My parents
: couldn't care less what my religious affiliation is. Some of the
JW's I have
: noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also
want to
: criticize everybody elses.
$$$ And almost all of them do. But when you even hint at the faults in
their religious cult/sect they go bananas.
They also seem to take it as a very serious
: offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.
$$$ It's like we suddenly sprung horns and became one of their demons
they're all so obsessed with.
mark sornson
campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7c3l09$lng$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Mark:
>
>I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the Catholic
>religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents. When I first
>heard my inlaw making negative comments, I was a little put off, and later
>mentioned that my parents and family was Catholic. I thought that was a
>discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be offensive.
>However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she is
>either rude or insensitive.
Just out of curiousity, are any (or all) of those JW inlaws
former Catholics?
Are these in-laws by marriage (i.e., your wife's family, if
you are married), or by marriage of brothers or sisters
whose spouses have JW relatives? Just wondering,
for I admit that I don't know much about you (and am
too lazy at the moment to use dejanews to see what
else you've posted about yourself from however-far-back).
Also, what nationality are your in-laws? What I mean is,
are there any factors in their backgrounds (other than
their being JWs) that might have predisposed them to
be very expressive of their negative opinions? Though
I don't mean to stereotype them, people of some
nationalities (on the average) tend to be more outspoken,
whereas others tend to be more reserved.
If your in-laws weren't JWs (but some other religion),
do you suppose that they might be just as outspoken
about some other religion that they disliked?
>
>This brings me to the second point about rejecting faiths without bashing
>them. Like Carol, I have rejected the faith I was raised in. I don't
think
>that is an uncommon occurrence, as we get older we find spiritual meaning
in
>ways that might be different from our parents. That doesn't mean that I
>disapprove or think my parent's religion is wrong or evil, it just means it
>is not for me. By rejecting, one is not necessarily bashing. My parents
>couldn't care less what my religious affiliation is.
That's OK by me.
>
Some of the JW's I have
>noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want
to
>criticize everybody elses.
You could easily erase "JWs" from this paragraph and
just leave a blank that anyone could fill in with a different
religion based on an encounter with a person of
some other faith with a similar degree of disdain for
other religions. There was a time, for instance, when
Catholics (such as in Canada) actively persecuted JWs.
The Greek Orthodox church in Greece has similarly been
intolerant of JWs. And the Russian Orthodox church
is currently intolerant of every faith that is non-Orthodox
[to the point of instigating legal action against JWs,
and of inducing the Russian Duma to pass a law that
puts every 'Christian faith' except Russian Orthodoxy
out of favor with the govt].
I guess my point is that you've hit on a personality trait
that a LOT of people have, that isn't necessarily caused by
religion, per se, but rather is caused by being conditioned
to a pattern of thinking [formed by many factors] that
predisposes the person to be critical (as a knee-jerk
response) rather than tolerant (and more reflective).
> They also seem to take it as a
very serious
>offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.
This last sentence could easily open up a topic
thread that could spiral out of control.
At the risk of being understated, JWs take the decision
of someone to join us *very very* seriously in the first
place. We consider the act of becoming a JW to be
a declaration of having made a rather permanant and
carefully considered choice of loyalties that one would
be willing both to live for and to die for. Given that
fewer and fewer people seem to hold beliefs that
they would die for (lest they be tagged as fanatics
or extremists), I can imagine why some would be
puzzled that JWs seem to get so 'bent out of shape'
over someone who leaves. But look at it from our
point of view if you can -- if we're willing to die for our
beliefs, how consistent would it be for us to view them as
of so little consequence when someone else simply
up and quits as though they were walking through
the door of a theater -- off to be entertained elsewhere --
or a door to a store, as though our faith was just
one place to "shop" among many, as though spirituality
was a commodity and one religion just a "brand name"
to be chosen arbitrarily from many?
Though we don't begrudge others the privilege to
make other choices, we claim the right to highly
esteem our own faith as superlative (in our own
view) - and thus we cannot highly esteem the
choice for a person to accept and then later
reject what the rest of us consider to be so valuable.
To paraphrase a thought in the NT, it would be
better for them not to become JWs at all.
'nuff said for now.
If you want to chat about this at greater length
[and with greater candor], feel free to drop me
e-mail (sor...@zk3.dec.com).
-mark.
campb...@my-dejanews.com
"mark sornson" <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>
> campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7c3l09$lng$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >Mark:
> >
> >I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the Catholic
> >religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents. When I first
> >heard my inlaw making negative comments, I was a little put off, and later
> >mentioned that my parents and family was Catholic. I thought that was a
> >discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be offensive.
> >However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she is
> >either rude or insensitive.
>
> Just out of curiousity, are any (or all) of those JW inlaws
> former Catholics?
>
No, my mother in law was Lutheran and later converted, the others were then
raised as JW's.
> Are these in-laws by marriage (i.e., your wife's family, if
> you are married), or by marriage of brothers or sisters
> whose spouses have JW relatives? Just wondering,
> for I admit that I don't know much about you (and am
> too lazy at the moment to use dejanews to see what
> else you've posted about yourself from however-far-back).
>
They are in laws by marriage. My mother in law, and 2 of her children, are
JW's . My father in law is not. He is, I believe some sort of non
practicing Protestant.
> Also, what nationality are your in-laws? What I mean is,
> are there any factors in their backgrounds (other than
> their being JWs) that might have predisposed them to
> be very expressive of their negative opinions? Though
> I don't mean to stereotype them, people of some
> nationalities (on the average) tend to be more outspoken,
> whereas others tend to be more reserved.
>
Actually they are from nebraska, a supposedly very friendly state, and are
Americans of european origin who have been in the US for quite awhile. They
are not immigrants and I believe their ethnic background is Swedish or
Norwegian.
> If your in-laws weren't JWs (but some other religion),
> do you suppose that they might be just as outspoken
> about some other religion that they disliked?
My experience from people of other religions is that they tend to be
accepting of other groups. The only group I can remember hearing something
negative about is Jews. and even that is a few isolated incidents. Also, I
never hear them bashing Episcopalians or Presbyterians, or even Muslims, but
they seem to have some sort of bug up their behind about Catholicism and they
feel so justified in their dislike that they don't care what they say or who
they say it to. Perhaps it is just a personal thing with them, but hearing
Carol ( and sometimes others) tell of their experiences with JW's I wondered
if this was an attitude they learned through their group.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mark Sornson
>
> Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
> <36E4EF52...@zk3.dec.com>...
> : ** Legga Lamb ** wrote:
> : >
> : But you didn't boot them back out the door. In
> : fact, you invited them in, and associated with them
> : for years and years.
>
> $$$ Unfortunately yes. And I'm glad I never got baptized and sold
> literature and harmed even more people. Some became my good friends
> but as you can guess they felt about the WT/GB as I did.
That doesn't surprise me all that much, I guess,
because I know that there'll always be people associated
with JWs (some of whom actually become JWs) who
have, or may develop, a bitter spirit towards the
WT/GB. But it just seems rather pointless to me,
and actually somewhat insincere, to have associated
with this religion for so long when just about all the
while you had a spiteful attitude toward the
beliefs and practices that were really at the core
of what JWs were all about.
>
> So there must have been something
> : about their approach that you approved of (at the
> : time).
>
> $$$ Their approach? I was a lonely housebound new mother and they
> were company. Don't ever say they don't BASH other religions because
> they do... it's part of the indoctrination they use to get you involved
> with their own false religion.
Your answer begs the question, I think.
And besides, since you hung out with JWs for
many years (more than 10 - prior to 1975
and into the 80s, right?), you can't
use the excuse that you were a "lonely
housebound new mother" as the reason for
being involved for the entire duration.
If they did "bash other religions", that
must not have been a significant concern
for you, since you stayed with them
for such a long time.
And you now bash all religions, it seems ...
so is that part of the "indoctrination"
used upon you to get you "involved" with
your current set of beliefs (or non-beliefs)?
> :
> : Though you say you were never baptized (you did
> : say that to me), you attended meetings for many years.
>
> $$$ No one there forced me to be baptized. And I only attended the
> meeting when I had nothing better to do as I found them boring,
> tedious, juvenile, repetitious and mind numbing for the most part.
But yet you went for years and years.
There's something that just doesn't connect
between your actions and your stated feelings.
Like I said, you really must have been a
glutton for punishment. Did you go to the
meetings just to spite yourself?
>
> : If they really were so insulting all the while,
>
> $$$ Where did I say "all the while?"
What you say above about the meetings being
"boring, tedious, juvenile, repetitious and
mind numbing for the most part" sounds pretty
close to "all the while" to me.
It hardly strikes me as significant for you
to imply that "for the most part" means there
were a rare number of occasions when you felt
your visits were worthwhile.
>
> : you must really have been a glutton for punishment.
>
> $$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the society
> stunk as far as I was concerned.
But what was the point of going to meetings for
years and years just for the sake of "the few
couples" you got to know?
Either they were such great friends that you
were willing to undergo such suffering for
their sake (and not for God's sake), or else
you were soo desperate for friends that you
were willing the scrape the bottom of the
barrel and take *anyone* as a friend who would
pay you any attention. What exactly did you
put into your relationships with them that
made you their friend?
I can't imagine being friends for years and years
with someone who thinks some of the most important
aspects of my life "stink". *That* is pure
desperation for association.
Given that *most* JWs choose as their friends
other JWs who really value what JWs stand for,
did you really leave JWs or did they leave you
[or finally tell you to 'hit the road']?
> :
> : In honor of your father or your mother, are you
> : now a Lutheran or a Catholic [given that it's
> : hard to be both]?
>
> $$$ I'm neither as I believe in evolution and the freedom from religion
> that provides. :o)
But what took you sooo long to get to this point?
Especially since you weren't, by your own
description, really trapped or forced into
believing anything JWs believed about God, etc.
>
> If you are neither, why do you
> : reject them
>
> $$$ Because I don't believe the Bible and all the fairy tales in it.
> And all religion is based on these fairy tales about this no-show God.
It sounds to me as though you wanted something
from God and you are mad that he didn't meet your
demands. You wanted him to give to you, but you
weren't willing to give anything to him.
Do your friends also become "no shows" to you when
you cannot get something from them anymore?
>
> (and how do you explain your rejection
> : of either faith without bashing the other)?
>
> $$$ I could care less what either believes as I am free of all that
> religious nonsense now.
"I could care less" certainly does seem to sum
things up.
Thanks for the reply.
-mark.
#(*0*)#
Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
<36E6A8BF...@zk3.dec.com>..
: That doesn't surprise me all that much, I guess,
*** It shouldn't as not all JW's are shoe lickers, brown nosers and
slaves to the GB.
: because I know that there'll always be people associated
: with JWs (some of whom actually become JWs) who
: have, or may develop, a bitter spirit towards the
: WT/GB.
*** More of them then you'd ever admit too and most will and do leave
eventually.
But it just seems rather pointless to me,
: and actually somewhat insincere, to have associated
: with this religion for so long when just about all the
: while you had a spiteful attitude toward the
: beliefs
*** Spiteful? Not spiteful... spite is a waste of time and for kids.
Should I have got down on bended knee and worshipped the GB?
and practices that were really at the core
: of what JWs were all about.
*** I came to see the "whole truth" let us say long before I stopped
associating with them. Like may other JW's I stayed because of friends
there... not because I was so in love with the selfish, greedy GB and
their self serving beliefs.
: : >
: > $$$ Their approach? I was a lonely housebound new mother and they
: > were company. Don't ever say they don't BASH other religions
because
: > they do... it's part of the indoctrination they use to get you
involved
: > with their own false religion.
:
: Your answer begs the question, I think.
: And besides, since you hung out with JWs for
: many years (more than 10 - prior to 1975
: and into the 80s, right?), you can't
: use the excuse that you were a "lonely
$$$ Of course not. Within a year or so of my son's birth I had made
non JW friends. But that didn't mean I'd drop the JW's and shun them
as they do others. The friendships held.
: housebound new mother" as the reason for
: being involved for the entire duration.
$$$ See above. I had both JW and non JW friends.
:
: If they did "bash other religions", that
: must not have been a significant concern
: for you, since you stayed with them
: for such a long time.
$$$ It was a concern of mine and I asked them to please stop talking
about it to me and most of them complied.
:
: And you now bash all religions, it seems ...
$$$ Only the fanatical, harmful and cultlike ones that HARM people and
do nothing for them.
: so is that part of the "indoctrination"
: used upon you to get you "involved" with
: your current set of beliefs (or non-beliefs)?
$$$ After reading the Bible twice on my own, without the so called help
of the JW's I saw that they were full of male bovine manure. I also
saw that the Bible was a book of ancient myths written by egotistical
men looking to control the masses of their day with supernatural
story's most kids today would see right through. It was fables and
fairy tales. And the books on evolution I had studied made a lot more
sense to me then these silly story's from the dark past.
: :
: But yet you went for years and years.
$$$ Perhaps once a week, sometimes less. So?
: There's something that just doesn't connect
: between your actions and your stated feelings.
$$$ Like what?
:
: Like I said, you really must have been a
: glutton for punishment.
$$$ The GB and elders never got the chance to PUNISH me! Should they
have? I did as I pleased.
Did you go to the
: meetings just to spite yourself?
$$$ Huh? Are you psychotic?
: : > :
: What you say above about the meetings being
: "boring, tedious, juvenile, repetitious and
: mind numbing for the most part" sounds pretty
: close to "all the while" to me.
$$$ I went to as few as possible so as not to hear their lectures.
:o) And meanwhile I talked to them about the lies of the WT, the way
they were being used, the selfishness of the GB, evolution... and
gained the trust of many of them. Many had their own doubts but
wouldn't dare mention them least they be DF'd etc.
:
: It hardly strikes me as significant for you
: to imply that "for the most part" means there
: were a rare number of occasions when you felt
: your visits were worthwhile.
$$$ None were worthwhile that I can recall. It was all the same old
same old same old.... but I did plant the seeds of doubt in many. :o)
:
: > : > $$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the
society
: > stunk as far as I was concerned.
:
: But what was the point of going to meetings for
: years and years just for the sake of "the few
: couples" you got to know?
$$$ Again see above... made as FEW as possible.
--
Carol....
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
===========long winded fundy stupidity snipped==========
:
campb...@my-dejanews.com
> > Some of the JW's I have
> > >noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want
> > to
> > >criticize everybody elses.
> >
> > You could easily erase "JWs" from this paragraph and
> > just leave a blank that anyone could fill in with a different
> > religion based on an encounter with a person of
> > some other faith with a similar degree of disdain for
> > other religions. There was a time, for instance, when
> > Catholics (such as in Canada) actively persecuted JWs.
> > The Greek Orthodox church in Greece has similarly been
> > intolerant of JWs. And the Russian Orthodox church
> > is currently intolerant of every faith that is non-Orthodox
> > [to the point of instigating legal action against JWs,
> > and of inducing the Russian Duma to pass a law that
> > puts every 'Christian faith' except Russian Orthodoxy
> > out of favor with the govt].
> >
> > I guess my point is that you've hit on a personality trait
> > that a LOT of people have, that isn't necessarily caused by
> > religion, per se, but rather is caused by being conditioned
> > to a pattern of thinking [formed by many factors] that
> > predisposes the person to be critical (as a knee-jerk
> > response) rather than tolerant (and more reflective).
Of course this trait is not particular to any religious group, look at the
wars that have been fought over different interpretations of the Bible. But
I guess I would expect "better than average" from a group that claims to
have the best interpretation of the Bible and the people that adhere to it
most diligently. What about that whole "judge not...." part? There seems to
be just as much judging coming from JW's as from any other faith.
I have seen numerous posts here from former JW's who say they still believe
in most of the same thing JW's believe, but have decided to no longer
practice the religion because of either factors within their congregation or
that they disagreed with certain doctrinal points. As a result of their
decisions, some of them tell terrible stories of being cut off from families
and friends because they essentially exercised their freedom of conscience. I
don't think they necessarily hold their faith in low regard, they just felt
they were not spiritually fulfilled within a particular denomination. I
think it is very sad that these people are ostracized simply because they now
choose a different path.
What about people who grow up in the JW faith, get baptized because it is
expected and then find spiritual fulfillment elsewhere? Should they lose the
approval of their family just because they have changed their religious
affiliation?
> > Though we don't begrudge others the privilege to
> > make other choices, we claim the right to highly
> > esteem our own faith as superlative (in our own
> > view) - and thus we cannot highly esteem the
> > choice for a person to accept and then later
> > reject what the rest of us consider to be so valuable.
> > To paraphrase a thought in the NT, it would be
> > better for them not to become JWs at all.
> >
Certainly it would have been better for all concerned for them not to become
JW's but I am sure that for children brought up within a JW family there
would be pressure to become one. When one later discovers that perhaps this
is not the optimal religion for them, why should they be castigated? Most
everyone who practices feels that their religion is superlative, but it seems
that other faiths tend to be more tolerant of people finding different paths
to God than the JW's. I don't hear of Presbyterian families divided by
conflict because a family member decided to become baptist, or that a
Methodist grandparent won't speak to their grandchild because his family is
Lutheran. I appreciate that you value your faith, but I wonder why this has
to be mutually exlusive to accepting the religious choices made by others.
Steve Champagne
> I think it is very sad that these people are ostracized simply because they now
>
> choose a different path.
Me too. But then I wonder why anyone would believe in a God thatallegedly comes
right out and says that He intends to ostracize others
in the most ultimate, irreversible way ("eternal death in hell") simply
because they chose a different path.....
In a way it makes sense that individual images of God would be chips
off the Old Block in this regard..... or am I missing something, here?
campb...@my-dejanews.com
now
> >
> > choose a different path.
>
comes
> right out and says that He intends to ostracize others
> in the most ultimate, irreversible way ("eternal death in hell") simply
> because they chose a different path.....
>
> In a way it makes sense that individual images of God would be chips
> off the Old Block in this regard..... or am I missing something, here?
>
I guess that since we each create our own God that those of us who tend to be
vengeful are mroe likely to believe in a God that is vengeful also. I also
think that if people think God is vengeful, they feel more justified in
mistreating others. Fortuantely for me, my God isn't into hell and
damnation.:)
> --
> I know we're the same because I hurt when I hurt you
> and feel good when I treat you as though you are me.
> ~
> "Steven R. Champagne" 2 lines, 106 characters
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Steve Champagne
> I guess that since we each create our own God that those of us who tend to be
> vengeful are mroe likely to believe in a God that is vengeful also. I also
> think that if people think God is vengeful, they feel more justified in
> mistreating others. Fortuantely for me, my God isn't into hell and
> damnation.:)
This all makes perfectly good sense to me!
Although it might be more accurate to say that we our
own image or representation of God rather than literally
our own God. But perhaps that's what you meant anyway.
Mark Sornson
>
> Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
> <36E6A8BF...@zk3.dec.com>..
> : That doesn't surprise me all that much, I guess,
>
> *** It shouldn't as not all JW's are shoe lickers, brown nosers and
> slaves to the GB.
The ones who *think* they are slaves end up
out the door (like you). The ones who consider
themselves spiritual brothers to the GB members
do just fine.
>
> : because I know that there'll always be people associated
> : with JWs (some of whom actually become JWs) who
> : have, or may develop, a bitter spirit towards the
> : WT/GB.
>
> *** More of them then you'd ever admit too and most will and do leave
> eventually.
You really don't know what I'd "ever admit too".
In Jesus' parable of the sower, about the seeds sown
along the road, only 1 out of 4 seeds landed in
the "fine soil". So just taking that as a rough
guideline, I'd be willing to "admit" (or really
accept) a ratio like that [though I really don't think
it's close to that].
I think the NT (especially the epistles) makes
it pretty plain that enough people came and left
the early Christian congregation to be significant
(i.e., significant enough to mention as a fact
of life).
Something else to factor in is that although
people *do* leave (of their own accord, or are
tossed out as disfellowshipped), *some* do come
back.
>
> But it just seems rather pointless to me,
> : and actually somewhat insincere, to have associated
> : with this religion for so long when just about all the
> : while you had a spiteful attitude toward the
> : beliefs
>
> *** Spiteful? Not spiteful... spite is a waste of time and for kids.
I agree that spite is a waste of time, but it
looks to me as though you *are* wasting your time
being spiteful.
> Should I have got down on bended knee and worshipped the GB?
Well, it appears to me that throughout all the
years you associated at the KH, you didn't 'get down
on bended knee' to worship ANYTHING, including God
[which is the reason you should have been there].
Remember, the Kingdom Hall is a place of worship.
If you thought all they did was 'worship the GB',
then you only have yourself to blame for going there
all those years.
>
> and practices that were really at the core
> : of what JWs were all about.
>
> *** I came to see the "whole truth" let us say long before I stopped
> associating with them. Like may other JW's I stayed because of friends
> there... not because I was so in love with the selfish, greedy GB and
> their self serving beliefs.
As you know, since JWs don't pass the plate or
make any other mandatory contribution, the
'greedy ol GB' can't get their hands on anything
that isn't freely donated. And given that recent
surveys indicate that in the US, the per-capita
donation rate is about $4 per person per month (a
whopping $48 per year per person by today's
standards) - MOST of which goes directly to the
local congregation for its expenses, if we
back-project this rate to 1960-1980 era dollars,
that's just not a whole lot of money to get
"greedy and self-serving" over.
Just out of curiousity, how many GB members did
you ever meet in person?
Like I said before, something just doesn't add up.
To me you seem to be spinning more of an after-the-fact
story.
All this emphasis of yours on material selfishness
and greed suggests to me that you had some sort of
personal, material expectation in connection with
the JWs that was dissappointed.
> : Your answer begs the question, I think.
> : And besides, since you hung out with JWs for
> : many years (more than 10 - prior to 1975
> : and into the 80s, right?), you can't
> : use the excuse that you were a "lonely
>
> $$$ Of course not. Within a year or so of my son's birth I had made
> non JW friends. But that didn't mean I'd drop the JW's and shun them
> as they do others. The friendships held.
But the question is, were you or were you not
passing yourself off (to your JW friends) as
a JW, or at least as a person who was very interested
in becoming one? Did you, perhaps, become
a fixture such that people might have
assumed you were baptized?
How long did you go to meetings? Wasn't it from
the late 1960s until the mid-1980s?
If you never actually joined JWs, then
talk about "shunning" and all that is a moot
point, for that only applies to those who
become JWs and then leave.
And again, the question is, did you really drop
JWs (eventually), or did they drop you?
>
> : housebound new mother" as the reason for
> : being involved for the entire duration.
>
> $$$ See above. I had both JW and non JW friends.
Do you "still* have JW friends? Do they consider
you to be their friend? [It doesn't count if
they are ex-JWs at this point.]
> :
> : If they did "bash other religions", that
> : must not have been a significant concern
> : for you, since you stayed with them
> : for such a long time.
>
> $$$ It was a concern of mine and I asked them to please stop talking
> about it to me and most of them complied.
So, there you go. *Most* of them were more than
willing to accomodate you. But what did it buy
them? for you didn't become a JW, and that's really
what JWs hope those who associate with them will
become.
> : And you now bash all religions, it seems ...
>
> $$$ Only the fanatical, harmful and cultlike ones that HARM people and
> do nothing for them.
A carefully enumerated and documented list, I see.
>
> : so is that part of the "indoctrination"
> : used upon you to get you "involved" with
> : your current set of beliefs (or non-beliefs)?
>
> $$$ After reading the Bible twice on my own, without the so called help
> of the JW's I saw that they were full of male bovine manure. I also
> saw that the Bible was a book of ancient myths written by egotistical
> men looking to control the masses of their day with supernatural
> story's most kids today would see right through. It was fables and
> fairy tales. And the books on evolution I had studied made a lot more
> sense to me then these silly story's from the dark past.
And it took you *how many years* in association with
JWs to get to this point? More than 10, and possibly
even 20? Given that JWs really do encourage people
to read the Bible on their own, you can only blame yourself
for having taken so long.
What you say, of course, sounds a lot like a
predisposed attitude waiting for an excuse to
justify it.
> : :
> : But yet you went for years and years.
>
> $$$ Perhaps once a week, sometimes less. So?
In most other religions, a person who went to
'church services' once a week would be considered
pretty regular, and reasonably committed to the
faith. Plus that you did it for years and years
AS AN ADULT who was not forced in any way means
that you went because it meant something to you.
I think all this invective against the GB and etc.
has all been invented after-the-fact. There's
*something* significant that you're leaving out.
> : There's something that just doesn't connect
> : between your actions and your stated feelings.
>
> $$$ Like what?
Like you tell me.
You weren't forced by anyone to be involved.
No one in your family opposed you.
You attended meetings for 10-20 years.
But you never got baptized or got involved in
the JW ministry.
You had JWs friends and non-JW friends of
your choosing (to give you a wide perspective
on the social side of life).
With such a long record of association of
your own accord, with no apparent pressure to
*make* you conform [for you insist that you
were quite the individual, who didn't 'bow to
the GB, blah blah blah'], you go from that
point to complete and utter, disdainful rejection.
Something must have happened that was the
catalyst for your 'big break' [although that
you had such a break isn't surprising since
you really didn't lay a solid foundation to
stand upon].
> :
> : Like I said, you really must have been a
> : glutton for punishment.
>
> $$$ The GB and elders never got the chance to PUNISH me! Should they
> have? I did as I pleased.
A ridiculous, and even paranoid statement, except
that perhaps it reveals that you did something
that they *could* have punished you for had you
been a baptized member of the congregation.
>
> Did you go to the
> : meetings just to spite yourself?
>
> $$$ Huh? Are you psychotic?
Only if replying to you is part of the definition.
> : : > :
> : What you say above about the meetings being
> : "boring, tedious, juvenile, repetitious and
> : mind numbing for the most part" sounds pretty
> : close to "all the while" to me.
>
> $$$ I went to as few as possible so as not to hear their lectures.
> :o) And meanwhile I talked to them about the lies of the WT, the way
> they were being used, the selfishness of the GB, evolution... and
> gained the trust of many of them. Many had their own doubts but
> wouldn't dare mention them least they be DF'd etc.
Don't make me laugh.
You went about once a week for 10-20 years, or
perhaps a 2-3 times a month [which, over that
long still adds up], but you didn't want to
"hear their lectures"?????? Give me a break,
already.
There's just no way any congregation would
tolerate a person like you hanging out with them
for that long whose primary goal was to "talk to them
about the lies of the WT ...," sowing doubt.
You may have been able to do that for a little
while [near the end of your stay], but it just
doesn't add up that you did that for such
a long time.
If you did this, did the last congregation you
were associated with finally toss you out?
> :
> : It hardly strikes me as significant for you
> : to imply that "for the most part" means there
> : were a rare number of occasions when you felt
> : your visits were worthwhile.
>
> $$$ None were worthwhile that I can recall. It was all the same old
> same old same old....
But for all those years, which began when
you were an adult? No way.
> but I did plant the seeds of doubt in many. :o)
What a good, sincere friend you were.
> :
> : > : > $$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the
> society
> : > stunk as far as I was concerned.
> :
> : But what was the point of going to meetings for
> : years and years just for the sake of "the few
> : couples" you got to know?
>
> $$$ Again see above... made as FEW as possible.
Over 10-20 years? Associating for that long and
going to "as FEW [meetings] as possible" are
contradictory goals. The story you tell just
is NOT believable.
-mark.
Tallyman
bijou2 wrote:
> ...we speak out with fearlessness
> he is the god of true profesy
> all he foretells comes to be!!!!!!
>
> i am a jehovah's witness i am proud to be one i have been disveloshipped
> last year may and i am making a real effort to go back because i now know
> they live by the bible
Hey NumbChuck,
They'll Disfellowship your ass again if they catch you posting in this
newsgroup.
You have no Watchtower-Right to be here!
TT
bijou2
Drew Arrington
Being of no particular religion myself, and never aspiring to become a
part of one, perhaps my point of view might be valid here as being, at
least, fairly nonjudgemental (can't say that I'm completely
nonjudgemental, for then I'd really be a hypocrite).
Take a look at a religion as a school that is setting out to
teach people to love themselves ("Love thy nieghbour as thyself", to
quote a phraze from one of the rule books). At least lets take a look
at that being its origional purpose. If we compare this to the
current school system, we can come to realize that we cannot judge a
school by its students. For instance, when we walk into a
kindergarden room, we find children yelling and screaming, throwing
things at one another, wiping thier noses on there sleeves, and doing
all manner of things that would be revolting to us in any other
circumstance. Do we judge the school by how these children are
reacting? No, they are children and that is what children do. Yet
when we walk into a grade 2 class and see the children there are more
well behaved, yet still they have many of the tendancies of the
kindergardners, though much more mature. We find that as we go up the
grades, we will find the same thing, more maturety, less childlike
tendencies, and more intellegent beings. Of course, no school is
really alike. Each has its own method of instruction and discipline.
And also, we run into the problem of the school being only as good as
it's teachers, for if the teacher cannot instruct the way a student
needs to learn, then all the instruction is for not. This, of course,
is not to say that the school system itself is not corrupt or straying
from the origional purpose. It is to say, however, that, in any
religion, we run into students of varying grade levels, each has
learned only a few things and to varying degrees. And so to make an
all incompassing statement of "All JW's are alike" is simply a
judgement that is truely lacking any experience. I do agree that JW's
have similarities, due to the dicipline that that school uses, though
so do catholics, and buddists, and hindus, and .... Many people that
are in religions (or philosophies or belief systems) are judgemental,
yet so are the ones that are not, for they are judging the people in
the religions, just as the people in the religions are judging the
ones who are not. No two people are completely alike. There are
people behind those dogmas. Each with there own fears and angers to
work through, just like you or I. Perhaps, by looking at religions in
the way that I am describing, you can find it in yourself to release
your judgement on the students and allow them the opportunity to
learn and be learned from in whatever way they choose to learn and
from whatever school they go to. And maybe, just maybe, find it in
your heart to praise them for wishing to become more than what they
perceive themselves to be. They are all really looking to transend
judgement and learn how to love themselves. There are some good
things about religions and there are some things that may need
changing. So what? Each person is doing his/her best to find love
and joy, we just go to different schools.
With gratitude,
Drew Arrington.
We sit around and talk of masters, while the masters walk the talk.
Jabriol
>
> They'll Disfellowship your ass again if they catch you posting in this
> newsgroup.
>
> You have no Watchtower-Right to be here!
>
>
> TT
ok here goes..
my congregation is south camden spanish
I am a servant..
now I will await one week to see if I get expelled.
If I do you say the truth..
if I don't you lie.
Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
South Camden Spanish
ICQ: 8967074
Powwow: jab...@cris.com
webphone: jab...@cris.com
Personal E = spid...@hotmail.com,
emergency contact = 16095...@omnipoint.com (must be 160 characters or
less in plain text. Should be used to direct me to my personal-e without
@omnipoint
it is my cellphone)
game?
Drew Arrington
Thought I'd write down some thoughts :-).
Froggy,
I believe what you are saying here (and correct me if I am inaccurate)
is that you have chosen another path, other than the JW one and that
is the path that you are on now. In your writing, though, it seems
that you are not so comfortable on the path that you travel at the
moment. The reason that I say this is that I see in your writing that
you must justify choosing that path through a hostility twards your
past association with the JW's. Now, of course, this is only taken in
the context of the few words that you have written here. I don't
proffess to know you or the totality of who you are, by hypothising
from a few writen statments. Like I said, it just SEEMS to be. At
any rate, on with my discourse. If this is true, you might want to
ask yourself a few questions. Firtsly, "Why do I feel the need to
justify where I am?". When someone feels the need to justify
something, that usually means that he/she is not wholey in acceptance
of the responsibility of where they are. They have some lingering
guilt or fear that they may be doing the wrong thing (either
consciously or unconsciously). Secondly, "Am I really taking
resposibility for my life now?". Taking responsibility alows you to
move forward on your path much more quickly. Taking responsibility,
means accepting the past and honoring that it was a series of things
that led you to the place that you are now and releasing the
blame/shame/guilt that you have associated to it so that you can focus
on learning the lessons that are happening now, rather than the ones
that happened then. By focusing on the past and placing the
judgements on yourself and blame on the situations that happened back
then, you are wasting energy that could be put to good use in your
life in the now. Now, of course, all of the things that I typed here
are easier said, than done. Also, I could be completely off base for
you and where you are in your process. Just a few things you might
want to look at.
Mark,
I believe that you are doing your best to show Froggy that her
hostility is missplaced. Yet in doing so, you seem to have become
just as deffensive. You might want to ask yourself this question: "Am
I responding because I intend to instruct and be instructed or am I
responding out of my own insecurities?". If we feel that we need to
defend our point of view, then, again, we are not really comfortable
with it and may want to ask why we are not. Again, just my hypothisis
of the situation. Thanx for the listen.
With gratitude,
Drew Arrington
+++ (*).(*) +++
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cgmt9$o...@chronicle.concentric.net>...:
: ok here goes..
: : my congregation is south camden spanish
: I am a servant..
$$$ A servant? Heaven help that cong. Can you imagine this person
teaching your children?
:
: : : now I will await one week to see if I get expelled.
$$$ They wont expel you as they're in dire need of people to bring in
new converts and money. It just goes to show what type of person they
now keep in their congs. But then they always did, they just keep it
quiet before the internet.
:
: If I do you say the truth..
: if I don't you lie.
$$$ So now the WT/JW's allow people like jabbers to represent them.
Who'd want to belong to a cult like that? You'd have a better chance
with a David Koresh or the Heavens Gate wingnuts. If you sent Jab's
posts to his cong' they think they were great! I wonder what the
mentality and educational lever of that Camden cong. is?!?!?! to put up
with the likes of him.
--
Carol....
"I intend to live forever - so far so good."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
: Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
:
+++ (*).(*) +++
Drew Arrington <noad...@this.post> wrote in article
<36ed4365.1692523@news>...
: Froggy,
: : I believe what you are saying here (and correct me if I am
inaccurate)
: is that you have chosen another path, other than the JW one and that
: is the path that you are on now.
### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
In your writing, though, it seems
: that you are not so comfortable on the path that you travel at the
: moment.
### I am quite comfortable since I am now free of all religions and
their beliefs, their bigotry's, and their endless use of fear (do this
or God'll getcha).
The reason that I say this is that I see in your writing that
: you must justify choosing that path through a hostility twards your
: past association with the JW's.
### I had hostility towards the WT long before I left the JW's behind.
Why should I need to justify my belief in evolution? Why does anyone?
Do I need to justify my belief that the sum comes up every day, that
the tide comes in and goes out?
Now, of course, this is only taken in
: the context of the few words that you have written here. I don't
: proffess to know you or the totality of who you are, by hypothising
: from a few writen statments.
### Good... :o)
Like I said, it just SEEMS to be. At
: any rate, on with my discourse. If this is true, you might want to
: ask yourself a few questions. Firtsly, "Why do I feel the need to
: justify where I am?".
### Sorry but I don't have that NEED. Evolution makes sense to me.
When someone feels the need to justify
: something, that usually means that he/she is not wholey in acceptance
: of the responsibility of where they are.
### I'm comfortable where I am. Are you? And it is my responsibility
for being where ever I am.
They have some lingering
: guilt or fear that they may be doing the wrong thing (either
: consciously or unconsciously).
### The wrong thing? For me that would be to pretend to be something
I'm not... like a religious fundy.
Secondly, "Am I really taking
: resposibility for my life now?".
### Who else can? My kids? My grandkids? My friend up the road?
Taking responsibility alows you to
: move forward on your path much more quickly. Taking responsibility,
: means accepting the past and honoring that it was a series of things
: that led you to the place that you are now and releasing the
: blame/shame/guilt that you have associated to it
### What shame/blame and guilt? Are you projecting your own
shortcomings on me? I feel no guilt for selling WT lies to the public
or society. I feel no shame that I hated the mindless KH meetings and
no blame on any one person for why I started to believe in evolution.
After reading the Bible twice, on my own sans a JW spoon feeding me the
WT interpretation I saw the Bible for what it was, not what I had been
told it was.
so that you can focus
: on learning the lessons that are happening now, rather than the ones
: that happened then.
### Lesson #1.... plant the seeds of TRUTH about this cult and save
others before they become ensnared.
By focusing on the past and placing the
: judgements on yourself and blame on the situations that happened back
: then,
### Lesson #2..... I'm focused on planting the seeds of truth.... see
above.
you are wasting energy that could be put to good use in your
: life in the now.
### I am putting my energy to good use... I spreading seeds of truth
and doubt so others can see for themselves.
Now, of course, all of the things that I typed here
: are easier said, than done. Also, I could be completely off base for
: you and where you are in your process. Just a few things you might
: want to look at.
### Thanks for your concern. ;O)
Drew Arrington
Thanks for the response. Not projecting what-so-ever. Just throwing
an oppinion out there, not a judgement. thanks for the listen.
Drew Arrington
Behind anger, there is always fear. Dispite what the psychologis say,
anger is not a base emotion. There are only two: fear and love.
Which do you wish to come from?
Jabriol
> ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
Mark Isaak
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
>then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
Just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can
tell you. Lots of species don't even have males.
Jabirol, you are reinforcing my opinion that you will tell any lie, no
matter how large and vicious, to put down anything that disagrees with
your personal opinion.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Jabriol
> just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can
> tell you. Lots of species don't even have males.
evidence please?, then how is it per evolution, that male's dominate
about every aspect of social Human life.
duhhhhh what happen to Natural selection........???
di...@my-dejanews.com
jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
Well Jabs, once again you demonstrate your ignorance of evolution. Nowhere
does evolution indicate such a thing. Various religions, including the bible
based fundamentalist ones, make that claim.
>
>
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
alex
Jabriol,
Sorry to contradict you but if you told the elders in your congregation
that you posted to this group and that *DF's* were on this group then I
believe that you WOULD get reproved and told not to associate with them,
wether or not you were supporting and witnessing etc.
Sorry buddy, I don't buy it.
Alex
>
> > bijou2 wrote:
> >
> > > ...we speak out with fearlessness
> > > he is the god of true profesy
> > > all he foretells comes to be!!!!!!
> > >
> > > i am a jehovah's witness i am proud to be one i have been
> disveloshipped
> > > last year may and i am making a real effort to go back because i now
> know
> > > they live by the bible
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey NumbChuck,
> >
> > They'll Disfellowship your ass again if they catch you posting in this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > You have no Watchtower-Right to be here!
> >
> >
> > TT
>
> ok here goes..
>
> my congregation is south camden spanish
> I am a servant..
>
>
>
> now I will await one week to see if I get expelled.
>
> If I do you say the truth..
> if I don't you lie.
>
>
>
>
> Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
> South Camden Spanish
> ICQ: 8967074
> Powwow: jab...@cris.com
> webphone: jab...@cris.com
> Personal E = spid...@hotmail.com,
>
> emergency contact = 16095...@omnipoint.com (must be 160 characters or
> less in plain text. Should be used to direct me to my personal-e without
> @omnipoint
> it is my cellphone)
>
> game?
>
>
n
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in
evolution.
That'a a nice lie Jabby. Did you come up with it yourself?
Boikat
>
>
Jabriol
> Jabriol,
>
> Sorry to contradict you but if you told the elders in your congregation
> that you posted to this group and that *DF's* were on this group then I
> believe that you WOULD get reproved and told not to associate with them,
> wether or not you were supporting and witnessing etc.
>
> Sorry buddy, I don't buy it.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> >
they alredy know. And I follow the guidelines. Usenet is public domain.
I may run into any Df's in any newsgroup in any part of the net.
Jabriol
> > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in
> evolution.
>
> That'a a nice lie Jabby. Did you come up with it yourself?
>
> Boikat
please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a species
is not an evolved trait?
jeff wiel
: > just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can
Well, it certainly passed you by.
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7ck9um$u...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies where
the women rule the roost. Also, in nature, there are species where the
female is larger than the male. Also, "might is right" does not truely
apply to humans because most of us are able to control 'primitive'
impulses. The exception being the low-brow knuckle-dragging wife beaters,
and jerk wads that kick their children out into the street permanaantly
because they do not "conform".
Know anyone like that Jabby?
Boikat
>
>
Boikat
jeff wiel <jw...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<F8o0L...@world.std.com>...
"It is, after all, an imperfect universe."
Ambassador G'kar, Babylon 5, 2362
>
>
Jabriol
> > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> species
> > is not an evolved trait?
>
> It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies where
> the women rule the roost.
in welfare america maybe..
I think you be watching to much Xena..
please tell us which country do they rule?
so men donitae women as a social thing and evolution has nothing to do with
it?
> Also, "might is right" does not truely
> apply to humans because most of us are able to control 'primitive'
> impulses.
no such thing as primative impulsive's, to suggest this would defy evolution
entirely.
> The exception being the low-brow knuckle-dragging wife beaters,
> and jerk wads that kick their children out into the street permanaantly
> because they do not "conform".
nothing wrong with the above.. it is part of evolution.. natural selection,
ya get rid of the garbage.. didnt hitler do this?
no moral in evolution.
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>
> > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> > species
> > > is not an evolved trait?
> >
> > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies
where
> > the women rule the roost.
>
> in welfare america maybe..
No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
>
> I think you be watching to much Xena..
Nope.
>
> please tell us which country do they rule?
I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
Thatcher who was the PM of England. Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
"Kings"?
Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of "Who's
in charge here"? was first asked.
Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.
>
> so men donitae women as a social thing and evolution has nothing to do
with
> it?
In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them that
women are property.
Boikat
Honus
>
> > > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in
> > evolution.
> >
> > That'a a nice lie Jabby. Did you come up with it yourself?
> >
> > Boikat
>
Why? You never listen.
> are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a species
> is not an evolved trait?
What does this have to do with your confusing the differences between
"superior" (your word) and "different?"
--
To reply via e-mail, replace the anti-spam "strangeflesh" with "net".
Raven
>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
....which you've got wrong, yet again.
Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Boikat
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<01be6f5c$12108720$1965d6d1@bigroy>...
>
>
> Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
> <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> >
>
[snip]
> >
> >
> >
> > > Also, "might is right" does not truely
> > > apply to humans because most of us are able to control 'primitive'
> > > impulses.
> >
> > no such thing as primative impulsive's, to suggest this would defy
> evolution
> > entirely.
> >
Are you that stupid?
> >
> >
> > > The exception being the low-brow knuckle-dragging wife beaters,
> > > and jerk wads that kick their children out into the street
> permanaantly
> > > because they do not "conform".
> >
> > nothing wrong with the above.. it is part of evolution.. natural
> selection,
> > ya get rid of the garbage..
Only for low-brow knuckle-draggers, which you just admitted to being.
>> didnt hitler do this?
No, Hitler was a nutcase.
> >
> > no moral in evolution.
Bo brain, no gain.
Boikat
> >
> >
>
>
John Wilkins
|In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
|>
|> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
|>
|> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
|
|....which you've got wrong, yet again.
|
|Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
| 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
And does anyone have the address of that tenant? I think I'd like to meet her...
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Raven
says...
>
> > just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can
> > tell you. Lots of species don't even have males.
>
> evidence please?, then how is it per evolution, that male's dominate
> about every aspect of social Human life.
They don't. Maybe it's your sexist way of thinking (as well as bigoted
and racist) that makes you think it's so.
> duhhhhh what happen to Natural selection........???
It's there, you just don't understand it.
maff91
>In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>>
>> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>>
>> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
>
>....which you've got wrong, yet again.
>
>Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
He's a Manpanzee.
Jabriol
> > > species
> > > > is not an evolved trait?
> > >
> where
> > > the women rule the roost.
> >
> > in welfare america maybe..
>
> No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
> >
Well in america, You have matriarchal African American Families that is
sponsored by the state. Most african American men, can not or wont maintain
a family. You have Matriarch that indeed may have children from different
men.
as many as five. Since the teaching of evolution in public school america
has
subsituted religion, no morals are tought in school.
evolution moves on.
> > please tell us which country do they rule?
>
> I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
> Thatcher who was the PM of England.
and england maintains the custom..?
Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
> Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
> "Kings"?
duh,, they are exception to the rule, and experiment by social engineers
that
manipulate cultures, an evolutionary trait?
> Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of "Who's
> in charge here"? was first asked.
yup the glass ceiling and all that.
> Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.
a dyke
> In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
> factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them that
> women are property.
>
> Boikat
so you subscribe to the idea, that religion interferes with evolution.
Jim Phillips
> In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> >
> > > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
> >
> > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
>
> ....which you've got wrong, yet again.
>
> Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
Jabby got something about evolution right? Talk about your
extraordinary claim!
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net, Skep-ti-cult member, unofficial Cahooter
If Jesus *really* loves me, he'll forgive me for not worshiping him.
Honus
>
> In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> >
> > > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
> >
> > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
>
> ....which you've got wrong, yet again.
>
> Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
The spelling.
Splifford
> > Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
> > <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> > >
> > > > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> > > > species
> > > > > is not an evolved trait?
> > > >
> > > > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies
> > where
> > > > the women rule the roost.
> > >
> > > in welfare america maybe..
> >
> > No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
> > >
>
> Well in america, You have matriarchal African American Families that is
> sponsored by the state. Most african American men, can not or wont maintain
> a family.
You wouldn't happen to have figures to establish that 'most', now would you?
You have Matriarch that indeed may have children from different
> men.
> as many as five.
You wouldn't happen to have figures for that, either, now would you?
Since the teaching of evolution in public school america
> has
> subsituted religion, no morals are tought in school.
>
> evolution moves on.
>
>
>
> > > please tell us which country do they rule?
> >
> > I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
> > Thatcher who was the PM of England.
>
> and england maintains the custom..?
Maggie T. was merely the latest in a long line females with Serious Power
in Britain. Others include Boadicia, Elizabeth I, Bloody Mary (Liz 1's
sis) Mary Stuart (the one that Liz 1 had shortened by a head) the Mary
half of William and Mary (so beloved by all Irishmen) Eleanor of Aquitaine
(wife of Henry II, mother of Richard I Queen of the English and a major
reason that the 100 Years War started) and, of course, Victoria.
Other females with power in UK-style parliamentary democracies include
Indihra Gandhi (India), Benazir Bhutho (Pakistan), Golda Mier, one more
each in Bangadesh and Sri Lankha, and at least two Norwegians whose names
I can't recall off hand.
>
> Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
> > Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
> > "Kings"?
>
> duh,, they are exception to the rule, and experiment by social engineers
> that
> manipulate cultures, an evolutionary trait?
Gandhi was in India. Not exactly the most female-oriented society on
Earth. Her daughter-in-law has a real shot at becoming Prime Minister
there, too. Benazir Bhutto and the Bengali ran _Muslim_ countries. Golda
Mier, like Maggie T., ran her country 'cause she had more balls than the
rest of her cabinet combined. Seeing as Moshe Dayan was in Mier's cabinet,
messing with Golda was a non-habit-forming activity. Just ask Sadat.
>
>
>
> > Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of "Who's
> > in charge here"? was first asked.
>
> yup the glass ceiling and all that.
>
>
> > Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.
>
> a dyke
Hmm. That so? Someone should have told Julie Caesar and Mark Anthony...
>
>
>
>
> > In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
> > factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them that
> > women are property.
> >
> > Boikat
>
> so you subscribe to the idea, that religion interferes with evolution.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Honus
> >Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> > 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
>
> He's a Manpanzee.
Say, that reminds me! In another thread in talk.origins, something about
an effort to grant human rights to the great apes, someone gave a link
to a site with an article about said effort. I noticed that one of the
pictures accompanying the article was of two bonobos having sex. My
question is this: if Jabriol sees it and it gives him an erection, is it
porn?
Jabs...ask me nicely, and I'll post the link for you. (wink, wink)
maff91
wrote:
>maff91 wrote:
>>
>> On 15 Mar 1999 22:42:23 -0500, cem...@home.net (Raven) wrote:
>
>> >Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
>> > 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
>>
>> He's a Manpanzee.
>
>Say, that reminds me! In another thread in talk.origins, something about
>an effort to grant human rights to the great apes, someone gave a link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F277000/277031.stm
maff91
In non Western countries they came to power not because they were
thought to be competent but because they were daughter or wife of a
previous leader.
Mark Sornson
>
...
> > > I guess my point is that you've hit on a personality trait
> > > that a LOT of people have, that isn't necessarily caused by
> > > religion, per se, but rather is caused by being conditioned
> > > to a pattern of thinking [formed by many factors] that
> > > predisposes the person to be critical (as a knee-jerk
> > > response) rather than tolerant (and more reflective).
>
> Of course this trait is not particular to any religious group, look at the
> wars that have been fought over different interpretations of the Bible. But
> I guess I would expect "better than average" from a group that claims to
> have the best interpretation of the Bible and the people that adhere to it
> most diligently. What about that whole "judge not...." part? There seems to
> be just as much judging coming from JW's as from any other faith.
I hear you, but the problem is that JWs don't have
a "better than average" kind of people to select from -
i.e., only the very best of humanity who only evince
toleration, kindness, long-suffering, patience, mildness,
self-control, and all those other things that make a
person virtually faultless.
Instead, the Bible's message is targeted at those
who lack many or all of these qualities, to give
*them* hope for and a chance at improvement. [This
is akin to Jesus' statement that the healthy don't
need a physician, and that he came to save not the
righteous but the sinners.]
Even if we have (or feel we have) "the best interpretation
of the Bible" [which I feel we do], we only have the
same kind of people that are available everywhere else
in the world, the kind who have shortcomings that
often work against the best efforts to help them improve.
Do you see the point, that though we might have
a perfect theory, we only have an imperfect world
of people at hand to put it into practice.
Of course I don't mean to say that many who become JWs
don't improve and rise above their serious flaws and
better themselves [and the way they view and treat others].
But still, I think your premise for judging JWs
is flawed, for it assumes a standard that NO ONE (or
no group) alive can live up to.
>...
> I have seen numerous posts here from former JW's who say they still believe
> in most of the same thing JW's believe, but have decided to no longer
> practice the religion because of either factors within their congregation or
> that they disagreed with certain doctrinal points. As a result of their
> decisions, some of them tell terrible stories of being cut off from families
> and friends because they essentially exercised their freedom of conscience. I
> don't think they necessarily hold their faith in low regard, they just felt
> they were not spiritually fulfilled within a particular denomination. I
> think it is very sad that these people are ostracized simply because they now
> choose a different path.
If you adopt a world view in which there are no
absolutes, in which truth and the identity of God
and what the purpose of life is, and what man's relationship
to God is, are all open to any interpretation, in which one
man's say-so is as good as any other, then your position is
perfectly justifiable.
But the Bible doesn't promote that notion of relative
truth. Instead, it promotes its truths as certainties,
and even attaches capital significance to them [that is,
that they mean either life or death, and that God may
impose early death upon those who reject them].
In OT times, the penalty for false worship wasn't just
long sessions of intellectual debate about truth, but death.
Family members might even suffer death along with
individuals who took a wayward course, as individuals
were held responsible for the good of the many (the
nation) just as much as they were responsible for
themselves.
In NT times, Jesus made it clear from the outset that
in order to be his follower, as person had to be
willing to sacrifice immediate family relationships
[as well as assorted material aspects of life], if
not leaving them altogether, then at least putting
them as second. Those who did this were promised
compensation by receiving spiritual mothers/fathers/
sisters/brothers in return.
With the exception of one lone account, that of
Ananias and Saphira, there was no capital punishment
for deflection from Christianity. But there *was*
'social punishment' - namely, ostracism from the
body of believers of those who deflected or outright
quit. Some today decry the practice by JWs, but
it *was* a practice of the early Christians, for
its goal was to impress upon the person that
their personal decisions [to deflect from the truth
in some way] would not be condoned in any way, and
that such deflection was of capital magnitude [for
the NT fortells death to those who deflect and do
not repent]. It's not a pretty doctrine, but it
is what the Bible teaches.
> What about people who grow up in the JW faith, get baptized because it is
> expected and then find spiritual fulfillment elsewhere? Should they lose the
> approval of their family just because they have changed their religious
> affiliation?
Again, are you judging based on moral and spiritual
absolutes, or a relative morality which allows man
to define "good" any way he chooses?
The Bible says that if a person knows how to do what is
right but does not, it is a sin for him. There's no
question that within JW circles, it's clear to all who
grow up in JW families that becoming a baptized JW
is what is considered to be right. Plus the Bible shows
that young children (in OT times) could be dedicated
to God in some special way, like temple service [as
was true in Samuel's case], and God would consider
that dedication binding. It didn't even matter that
the child had no say in the level of committment, for
authority and obligation 'flowed downhill', from God
to parents, to children, to descendants. Christianity
*does* make membership a choice of the individual,
but clearly it teaches Christian parents to promote
Christian ideals to their children. Today we might
argue over the definition of "Christian", but in the
beginning, there was no question of a Christian parent
instilling only ambiguous spiritual values in their
children until they were old enough to 'sort things
out' on their own.
I'm sure it would be pleasing to many to hear it said
that the thought of a child of JW parents growing up to
become a JW is only what is "hoped for" (and the truth
is that many JW parents don't even see this hope fulfilled,
as their children not only do NOT get baptized, but take
off on their own at the earliest opportunity), as though
there was some 'moral credit' to be given to parents
who might forsee alternate spiritual futures for their
children. But really it's foolish to assume or even
insist that on a large scale that this is possible, and
that JW parents won't be like any other parent of some
other strongly held faith, who would do their utmost to
instill JW-values in their children, and hope to see those values
'bear fruit' at the earliest of ages. Plus Christianity
in its essence has a significant 'social slant', it
being a congregational form of worship, and thus by
default is a kind of society. Thus it's superfluous to argue
against "social pressure" and expectations when you're
talking about a form of worship that by its nature
promotes a set of ideals that make individuals aware
of their 'social responsibility' to the majority
right from the outset.
>
> > > Though we don't begrudge others the privilege to
> > > make other choices, we claim the right to highly
> > > esteem our own faith as superlative (in our own
> > > view) - and thus we cannot highly esteem the
> > > choice for a person to accept and then later
> > > reject what the rest of us consider to be so valuable.
> > > To paraphrase a thought in the NT, it would be
> > > better for them not to become JWs at all.
> > >
>
> Certainly it would have been better for all concerned for them not to become
> JW's but I am sure that for children brought up within a JW family there
> would be pressure to become one.
As has been said many times before, one can't
expect children to grow up in a moral and spiritual
vacuum if they have parents who hold a set of beliefs
that make their moral and spiritual values a major
aspect of their lives.
The only 'fix' for this problem is to hope/assume that
the children will grow up to adulthood and make
a decision on their own as adults, regardless of the
past. Adults who become JWs may have been Catholic
or some other faith with an equal degree of 'social
entrenchment' in the family life, and they must
choose to break the ties of the past for the sake
of their choices in the present.
> When one later discovers that perhaps this
> is not the optimal religion for them, why should they be castigated? Most
> everyone who practices feels that their religion is superlative, but it seems
> that other faiths tend to be more tolerant of people finding different paths
> to God than the JW's.
You should read some experiences of those who
become JWs after having been raised in families
of other faiths. It's AMAZING how intolerant
'normal people' can become.
What you have to do is consider on a case
by case basis what the different spiritual
path being chosen is. Knowing about JWs as
I do, I know that intolerance often flares.
> I don't hear of Presbyterian families divided by
> conflict because a family member decided to become baptist, or that a
> Methodist grandparent won't speak to their grandchild because his family is
> Lutheran.
But notice that your examples don't really involve
changes to faiths that are much off the beaten path
of what is considered 'normal'. What if the family
member becomes a JW? Or joins some other faith that
is viewed as on the fringe or a "cult"? What you
have to do is judge cases where the differences are
viewed as *extremely significant*.
> I appreciate that you value your faith, but I wonder why this has
> to be mutually exlusive to accepting the religious choices made by others.
For the most part, JWs do "accept the religious choices
made by others". We have no beef whatsoever with anyone
who has never been a JW [and that's most people]. But
again, since we do believe our faith is "the truth",
we feel that on principle we must take a more severe
view towards those who adopt it and then later
repudiate it. Since it's a faith that most JWs would
die for [if they had to -- not that we're looking to
be martyrs], we can't help but view those who leave
as themselves having spiritually died. Otherwise
we'd really repudiate our own values by treating them
as no account the way those who leave do.
It's been nice talking to you.
-mark.
Splifford
maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91) wrote:
That may have been how Indira got in, but it doesn't explain how she
_stayed_ in. (remember, she was _Nehru's_ daughter, not the Mahatma's. No
relation at all to the Mahatma. There are a _lot_ of Gandhis in India...)
She wasn't quite in Golda's class, but _I_ sure wouldn't have wanted to
irritate her. Benazir Bhuttho's father was _executed_. Not exactly a
ringing endorsement. And the Sri Lankhan and Bengali women both may have
inherited power, but also went a _lot_ further than their fathers ever
did. The military government in Myrmar (ex-Burma) is keeping Aym Sung (or
whatever) locked up after she won an election... and _she_ didn't inherit
any power.
The 'inherited power' route is also a fav for boys, too; Rajiv Gandhi, for
example, got the job 'cause he was Indira's son, not 'cause he had any
particular talent for politics. (Just for Jabs: the Japanese Emperor
has/had his authority in large part 'cause he's descended from the Sun
_Goddess_, Ameratsu. The Japanese have a long geneology which says so...
and unlike the geneologies in a certain much-translated book of Good News,
_their_ geneology doesn't contradict itself. So far as they're concerned,
the current Emperor really is the great-great-to-the-nth-grandson of a
Goddess. Yeshua bar Yussef ha Nazareth was a Johnny-come-lately. You want
to prove otherwise, Jabs? Banzai tenno!)
And, of course, in Western countries there are those Norwegian, Dutch,
English, and Israeli women who have been _very_ competent...
di...@my-dejanews.com
jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
> > <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> > >
> > > > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> > > > species
> > > > > is not an evolved trait?
> > > >
> > > > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies
> > where
> > > > the women rule the roost.
> > >
> > > in welfare america maybe..
> >
> > No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
> > >
>
> Well in america, You have matriarchal African American Families that is
> sponsored by the state. Most african American men, can not or wont maintain
> men.
> as many as five. Since the teaching of evolution in public school america
> has
> subsituted religion, no morals are tought in school.
Jabriol, I am so glad that you continue to demonstrate the high moral
standard that you provide for us. Let me see, racial hatred and lying all
rolled into one post. Funny thing, schools try to stop that sort or thing. I
guess that is what you meant when schools don't teach morals. They dont't
teach you to hate people because of their skin color. they don't teach you to
make up lies about the the people you hate, and they just in general don't
teach you to be dishonest. Jabbers, have you met Matt Nuenke, yet? I bet you
and he would quickly become best friends. You make me gag, sometimes.
snip
> > Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.
>
> a dyke
And your evidence for that is? And what is wrong with that anyways?
>
> > In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
> > factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them that
> > women are property.
> >
> > Boikat
>
> so you subscribe to the idea, that religion interferes with evolution.
No, you moron, religion is obviously interfering with your ability to learn,
and to be a decent, functioning normal human being.
campb...@my-dejanews.com
Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote:
> campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>snip snip
> >...
> > I have seen numerous posts here from former JW's who say they still believe
> > in most of the same thing JW's believe, but have decided to no longer
> > practice the religion because of either factors within their congregation or
> > that they disagreed with certain doctrinal points. As a result of their
> > decisions, some of them tell terrible stories of being cut off from families
> > and friends because they essentially exercised their freedom of conscience.
I
> > don't think they necessarily hold their faith in low regard, they just felt
> > they were not spiritually fulfilled within a particular denomination. I
> > think it is very sad that these people are ostracized simply because they
now
> > choose a different path.
>
> If you adopt a world view in which there are no
> absolutes, in which truth and the identity of God
> and what the purpose of life is, and what man's relationship
> to God is, are all open to any interpretation, in which one
> man's say-so is as good as any other, then your position is
> perfectly justifiable.
>
I do think that certain things are absolute, but I don't regard an
individuals relationship with God to be something I feel I can judge to be
correct or incorrect. I agree that there are certain people who by their
conduct have have proved themselves to be hurtful or harmful to other
individuals, but I don't see how choosing another religious denomination, or
even not participating in an orrganized faith would merit exclusion from
friends and family.
> But the Bible doesn't promote that notion of relative
> truth. Instead, it promotes its truths as certainties,
> and even attaches capital significance to them [that is,
> that they mean either life or death, and that God may
> impose early death upon those who reject them].
>
> In OT times, the penalty for false worship wasn't just
> long sessions of intellectual debate about truth, but death.
> Family members might even suffer death along with
> individuals who took a wayward course, as individuals
> were held responsible for the good of the many (the
> nation) just as much as they were responsible for
> themselves.
But I think that once a particular group starts trying to define what is
false worship ( especially if both parties are believing in mostly the same
thhing) they are usurping God's function. I mean, what human should be so
arrogant to try to do God's job. My personal opinion is that if there really
was sone true path to God, it would be a little more evident. I think that
if a person lives a good life and doesn't harm others, he is living within
God. I think a choice of religious affiliation isn't something that is an
absolute, I think the conduct is.
>
> In NT times, Jesus made it clear from the outset that
> in order to be his follower, as person had to be
> willing to sacrifice immediate family relationships
> [as well as assorted material aspects of life], if
> not leaving them altogether, then at least putting
> them as second. Those who did this were promised
> compensation by receiving spiritual mothers/fathers/
> sisters/brothers in return.
>
> With the exception of one lone account, that of
> Ananias and Saphira, there was no capital punishment
> for deflection from Christianity. But there *was*
> 'social punishment' - namely, ostracism from the
> body of believers of those who deflected or outright
> quit. Some today decry the practice by JWs, but
> it *was* a practice of the early Christians, for
> its goal was to impress upon the person that
> their personal decisions [to deflect from the truth
> in some way] would not be condoned in any way, and
> that such deflection was of capital magnitude [for
> the NT fortells death to those who deflect and do
> not repent]. It's not a pretty doctrine, but it
> is what the Bible teaches.
But the same people who you are ostracizing are not necessarily abandoning
Christianity or even Biblical principals, they are just leaving a man made
religious denomination.I think that by saying only one denominiation ( your
own) is Christian is extremely harsh and judgemental on your part.
>
> > What about people who grow up in the JW faith, get baptized because it is
> > expected and then find spiritual fulfillment elsewhere? Should they lose
the
> > approval of their family just because they have changed their religious
> > affiliation?
>
> Again, are you judging based on moral and spiritual
> absolutes, or a relative morality which allows man
> to define "good" any way he chooses?
>
> The Bible says that if a person knows how to do what is
> right but does not, it is a sin for him.
So a JW who continues to practice physically but no longer believes is being
sinful but still accepted within the congregation, while a person who leaves
the congregation because he is not spiritually fulfilled is not sinning, but
is none the less cut off from his friends and family? This seems a little
off...
T
> there was some 'moral credit' to be given to parents
> who might forsee alternate spiritual futures for their
> children. But really it's foolish to assume or even
> insist that on a large scale that this is possible, and
> that JW parents won't be like any other parent of some
> other strongly held faith, who would do their utmost to
> instill JW-values in their children, and hope to see those values
> 'bear fruit' at the earliest of ages.
I think most parents want their children to follow in their relgious footsteps
but they don't cut off their children if they choose not to. Within all
relgious groups there are certain members who regard their children's
affiliation as very important, and some will choose to disassociate themselves
from their children because of it, but I don't see any other relgious
denomiation actually encouraging it the way the JW"s seem to.
Plus Christianity
> in its essence has a significant 'social slant', it
> being a congregational form of worship, and thus by
> default is a kind of society. Thus it's superfluous to argue
> against "social pressure" and expectations when you're
> talking about a form of worship that by its nature
> promotes a set of ideals that make individuals aware
> of their 'social responsibility' to the majority
> right from the outset.
This brings up an interesting point. Do you think people continue to
practice the JW religion because it is so ensconced in their familial and
social circle even though they don't believe in it anymore? Don't you think
it would be better for these people who are not getting anything out of their
own relgion to look for a better path ?>
> >
> > > > Though we don't begrudge others the privilege to
> > > > make other choices, we claim the right to highly
> > > > esteem our own faith as superlative (in our own
> > > > view) - and thus we cannot highly esteem the
> > > > choice for a person to accept and then later
> > > > reject what the rest of us consider to be so valuable.
> > > > To paraphrase a thought in the NT, it would be
> > > > better for them not to become JWs at all.
> > > >
> >
> > Certainly it would have been better for all concerned for them not to become
> > JW's but I am sure that for children brought up within a JW family there
> > would be pressure to become one.
>
> As has been said many times before, one can't
> expect children to grow up in a moral and spiritual
> vacuum if they have parents who hold a set of beliefs
> that make their moral and spiritual values a major
> aspect of their lives.
>
> The only 'fix' for this problem is to hope/assume that
> the children will grow up to adulthood and make
> a decision on their own as adults, regardless of the
> past. Adults who become JWs may have been Catholic
> or some other faith with an equal degree of 'social
> entrenchment' in the family life, and they must
> choose to break the ties of the past for the sake
> of their choices in the present.
But should the family then ostracize them for their own personal choice?
But why would a JW believe that become a Presbyterian would be so wrong?
>
> > I appreciate that you value your faith, but I wonder why this has
> > to be mutually exlusive to accepting the religious choices made by others.
>
> For the most part, JWs do "accept the religious choices
> made by others". We have no beef whatsoever with anyone
> who has never been a JW [and that's most people]. But
> again, since we do believe our faith is "the truth",
> we feel that on principle we must take a more severe
> view towards those who adopt it and then later
> repudiate it. Since it's a faith that most JWs would
> die for [if they had to -- not that we're looking to
> be martyrs], we can't help but view those who leave
> as themselves having spiritually died. Otherwise
> we'd really repudiate our own values by treating them
> as no account the way those who leave do.
I guess because I don't think there is any one path to God, or any religious
denomination which is unconditionally correct in its interpretation of God's
will it is hard for me to consider judging others who I feel are making a an
effort to connect with God.
>
> It's been nice talking to you.
Thanks for the discussion.
>
> -mark.
LovesMeNot
writes:
>
>they alredy know. And I follow the guidelines. Usenet is public domain.
>I may run into any Df's in any newsgroup in any part of the net.
>
>
They are, indeed, the Kings and Queens of the "Loophole" LOL!!!
"Follow not the men who say they HAVE the truth, but rather follow the men who
are seeking it."
maff91
>In article <370c71de...@news2.newscene.com>,
>maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91) wrote:
>
>> On 16 Mar 1999 09:16:44 -0500, patj...@newsguy.com (Splifford) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <7cljg0$8...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
>> >> > <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
>> >> > > > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles
>within a
>> >> > > > species
>> >> > > > > is not an evolved trait?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies
>> >> > where
>> >> > > > the women rule the roost.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > in welfare america maybe..
>> >> >
>> >> > No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >> Well in america, You have matriarchal African American Families that is
>> >> sponsored by the state. Most african American men, can not or wont maintain
>> >> a family.
>> >
>> >You wouldn't happen to have figures to establish that 'most', now would you?
>> >
>> > You have Matriarch that indeed may have children from different
>> >> men.
>> >> as many as five.
>> >
>> >You wouldn't happen to have figures for that, either, now would you?
>> >
>> > Since the teaching of evolution in public school america
>> >> has
>> >> subsituted religion, no morals are tought in school.
>> >>
>> >> evolution moves on.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > > please tell us which country do they rule?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
>> >> > Thatcher who was the PM of England.
>> >>
>> >> and england maintains the custom..?
>> >
>> >Maggie T. was merely the latest in a long line females with Serious Power
>> >in Britain. Others include Boadicia, Elizabeth I, Bloody Mary (Liz 1's
>> >sis) Mary Stuart (the one that Liz 1 had shortened by a head) the Mary
>> >half of William and Mary (so beloved by all Irishmen) Eleanor of Aquitaine
>> >(wife of Henry II, mother of Richard I Queen of the English and a major
>> >reason that the 100 Years War started) and, of course, Victoria.
>> >
>> >Other females with power in UK-style parliamentary democracies include
>> >Indihra Gandhi (India), Benazir Bhutho (Pakistan), Golda Mier, one more
>> >each in Bangadesh and Sri Lankha, and at least two Norwegians whose names
>> >I can't recall off hand.
>>
>> In non Western countries they came to power not because they were
>> thought to be competent but because they were daughter or wife of a
>> previous leader.
>
>That may have been how Indira got in, but it doesn't explain how she
>_stayed_ in. (remember, she was _Nehru's_ daughter, not the Mahatma's. No
Yep.
>relation at all to the Mahatma. There are a _lot_ of Gandhis in India...)
>She wasn't quite in Golda's class, but _I_ sure wouldn't have wanted to
>irritate her. Benazir Bhuttho's father was _executed_. Not exactly a
He was executed by the military dictatorship. That's why she was
elected.
>ringing endorsement. And the Sri Lankhan and Bengali women both may have
>inherited power, but also went a _lot_ further than their fathers ever
Maybe not for the better.
>did. The military government in Myrmar (ex-Burma) is keeping Aym Sung (or
Aung San Suu Kyi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_140000/140955.stm
>whatever) locked up after she won an election... and _she_ didn't inherit
>any power.
But her father was a revered figure in Burmese history.
>
>The 'inherited power' route is also a fav for boys, too; Rajiv Gandhi, for
>example, got the job 'cause he was Indira's son, not 'cause he had any
>particular talent for politics. (Just for Jabs: the Japanese Emperor
>has/had his authority in large part 'cause he's descended from the Sun
>_Goddess_, Ameratsu. The Japanese have a long geneology which says so...
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2131.html
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cljg0$8...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
> > <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> > >
> > > > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles
within a
> > > > species
> > > > > is not an evolved trait?
> > > >
> > > > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are
societies
> > where
> > > > the women rule the roost.
> > >
> > > in welfare america maybe..
> >
> > No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
> > >
>
> Well in america, You have matriarchal African American Families that is
> sponsored by the state. Most african American men, can not or wont
maintain
> a family. You have Matriarch that indeed may have children from different
> men.
Not all families in that situation live on the dole either.
> as many as five. Since the teaching of evolution in public school america
> has
> subsituted religion, no morals are tought in school.
That's a load of crock. it's because of Rock and Roll Music. Sheesh!
>
> evolution moves on.
And left you behind. That should improve your chances with bumping uglies
with a chimp.
Boikat
>
>
>
> > > please tell us which country do they rule?
> >
> > I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
> > Thatcher who was the PM of England.
>
> and england maintains the custom..?
>
> Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
> > Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
> > "Kings"?
>
> duh,, they are exception to the rule, and experiment by social engineers
> that
> manipulate cultures, an evolutionary trait?
>
>
>
> > Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of
"Who's
> > in charge here"? was first asked.
>
> yup the glass ceiling and all that.
>
>
> > Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.
>
> a dyke
>
>
>
>
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cljg0$8...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
[snip]
>
>
> > > please tell us which country do they rule?
> >
> > I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
> > Thatcher who was the PM of England.
>
> and england maintains the custom..?
A female PM was not a "custom" fool.
>
> Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
> > Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
> > "Kings"?
>
> duh,, they are exception to the rule, and experiment by social engineers
> that
> manipulate cultures, an evolutionary trait?
No.
>
>
>
> > Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of
"Who's
> > in charge here"? was first asked.
>
> yup the glass ceiling and all that.
Your ignorance is amazing.
>
>
> > Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.
>
> a dyke
So, any woman in a position of authority is a "dyke"?
I normally do not curse and use foul language on the net, but on this
special occasion:
Jabby, you are full of *SHIT*!
We now return you to the meek and mild mannered Boikat. :}
>
>
>
> > In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
> > factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them
that
> > women are property.
> >
> > Boikat
>
> so you subscribe to the idea, that religion interferes with evolution.
"Interferes" is the wrong word, since that implies a "willing action to
influance". In a a more accurate context, religion influances human
evolution *indirectly* through social customs, which to a large extent is
based upon religious values.
Boikat
Drew Arrington
Anger is an attack response to fear. Fear is a FIGHT or flight
mechinism. Anger is a deffence to some preceived threat, it allow us
to attack first so that we would not be hurt or to attack back when
are being attacked. A treat is something that we fear, emotional pain
is something that we fear. Hence anger is another expression of fear.
Someone places a judgement on me and it makes me angry.
Why? What difference does it make what thier judgement is of me?
The judgement hurts me emotionally.
Why?
Because the judgement is wrong, I'm not like that.
So what if the judgement is wrong? Why does it make you angry? It
shouldn't.
Because I feel I am being attacked.
Ok, so you are being attacked, why are you angry?
Well, so that I can deffend myself.
Why do you feel you need to be deffended from someones judgement?
They are just words, after all. Are you not secure enough in yourself
to allow them to be wrong? You KNOW they are wrong, so why does it
hurt you and make you angry? Could it be possible that some deep part
of yourself thinks that they could be right?
Think about it.
Drew Arrington
Chris Krolczyk
Boikat (nice effort at non-attribution, Jabbers) writes:
> > Are you that stupid?
>no are you?
Pot. Kettle. Painted a nice glossy shade of black, yet.
>you are suggesting, that evolution in a species is a partway thing.
>define for us "primative impulse"
I can't speak for Boikat (neither can you, since you saw fit to quote
him minus proper attributions), but I challenge you to define a "partway
(sic) thing" first.
> > > > nothing wrong with the above.. it is part of evolution.. natural
> > > selection,
> > > > ya get rid of the garbage..
> > Only for low-brow knuckle-draggers, which you just admitted to being.
>So be it.
You agree with this assessment, then? That's progress.
>Ya just gave a prime example of my point. You decided that I am an
>Idiot "low-brow knuckle-draggers" or neanderthal, even though there no
>evidence that may be the case...
Oh, there's plenty of it - in your past posts and in your ability to
confuse the term of endearment "neanderthal" with an accusation that
you are, indeed, a biologically correct example of _Homo Neanderthalis_.
That literal turn of mind of yours will bring you nothing but trouble.
>that should be eradicated.
Ah, rhetorical overkill. Where would we be without it?
>anyone can make that determination, including those in power, who with
>technology, can eradicate anyone who they deem is not Human.
In a totalitarian state. Are _you_ living in one?
>Since Evolution
>of man can dictate morals how he see fit,
Ah, Jab's most familiar canard. Where would he be without it?
>you might be siding with hitler.
>while the method may different the intent remain the same.
Again, are _all_ of us living in a totalitarian state?
> > No, Hitler was a nutcase.
>even if he was, he employed a method that gave imediate results.
So what? What was the major motivation of the Russian Empire's
pogroms against Jews in the Pale of Settlement? Free clue: it
had less to do with your favorite bugbear than with religious
intolerance of an especially sinister variety.
>Germany is
>the trailblazer of europe today. is this social evolution?
Is Germany a democracy today? Did this newfound power occur
_because_ of Hitler's policies or in _spite_ of them, since
Germany seems to be a democracy these days? Please answer
in a fashion that might show actual thought. Thank you.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCE: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7codig$j...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>
> > > you are suggesting, that evolution in a species is a partway thing.
> > > define for us "primative impulse"
> >
> > It's a wonder that anyone that doesn't know what "primative impulses"
is,
> > can use a computer.
>
> just answer the question...
We? You've ducked several of mine, why should I show you and courtesy?
(Notwithstanding the fact theat "primative instinct" os pretty much self
explanitory.)
>
>
>
> > > So be it. Ya just gave a prime example of my point. You decided that
I
> am
> > an
> > > Idiot "low-brow knuckle-draggers" or neanderthal, even though there
no
> > > evidence that may be the case...
> >
> > No, you've given plenty of evidence that you are a knuckle dragging
> > "neanderthal"
> >
> > that should be eradicated.
>
> and Hitler had similar Ideas about the Jew's, he saw them as a threat,
and
> exterminated them, while his idea may be morally wrong.
>
"May be"?
> thanks for proving correct. Any person with the power to do can change
the
> rules..
That's human nature. Sad but true in some cases.
> and In case if the Neanderthal were still around why eradicate them?
That was your suggestion.
> because they are different?
That may be the resaon therre are no neanderthals around today. (Except for
you)
> welcome to the real world of future manipulated
> evolution by genetic engineering. remove all undesireable traits from
> Humanity,
Sounds good. (That does not mean march all the nearsighted people off to
gas chambers, that means correcting nearsightedness.)
> question is what is an undesireble trait?
Pick a genetic disease, any genetic disease. (For example, hemophelia.)
> and who determines it?
Well, if you don't concider hemophelia an "undesirable trait" then I
wouldn't know what to tell you.
Boikat
>
>
>
> > > even if he was, he employed a method that gave imediate results.
> Germany
> > is
> > > the trailblazer of europe today. is this social evolution?
> >
> > Note, Germany today, is not NAZI Germany of the 1930's.
> >
> > Boikat
>
> and by evolution standards, man today wasnt the man of a few millions
years.
> same thing.. good you are learning.
>
>
*** Gamblin Lamb ***
Drew Arrington <noad...@this.post> wrote in article
<36f15006.6826532@news>...
: Hi, Carol.
: : Anger is an attack response to fear.
### An attack response? Explain that further. Fear is caused by
something threatening to one's well being.
Fear is a FIGHT or flight
: mechinism.
### Right.
Anger is a deffence to some preceived threat,
### Who told you that? FEAR is the reaction to a perceived threat.
it allow us
: to attack first so that we would not be hurt or to attack back when
: are being attacked.
### Since when does a fearful person attack first? 99% will escape if
that's possible before attacking.
A treat is something that we fear, emotional pain
: is something that we fear. Hence anger is another expression of
fear.
### I disagree but of course that's your belief...soooooo.....
:
: Someone places a judgement on me and it makes me angry.
### Right... just like it makes normal people angry when a JW attacks
their religion in their own homes. Tells them that God's going to
slaughter all mankind but the JW's.... that makes meny people angry.
:
: Why? What difference does it make what thier judgement is of me?
### Right again! Who cares?
:
: The judgement hurts me emotionally.
: : Why?
### It shouldn't.
:
: Because the judgement is wrong, I'm not like that.
### Neither are the people judged by the JW's to be losers in God's
coming mass killing and slaughter of all humans - but them.
:
: So what if the judgement is wrong? Why does it make you angry? It
: shouldn't.
### Angry? At what?
:
: Because I feel I am being attacked.
: : Ok, so you are being attacked, why are you angry?
: : Well, so that I can deffend myself.
### Frightened people escape from any enemy if they can.
:
: Why do you feel you need to be deffended from someones judgement?
### Who's judgement? The WT's? I could care less what those half
senile old geezers think of us non's and ex-JW's.
: They are just words, after all. Are you not secure enough in
yourself
: to allow them to be wrong?
### Who are you talking about?
You KNOW they are wrong, so why does it
: hurt you and make you angry?
### Who are they?
Could it be possible that some deep part
: of yourself thinks that they could be right?
### About what?
:
: Think about it.
### I THINK you need to THINK about it! :O)
--
Carol....
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:
: Drew Arrington
:
:
:
:
:
Bonz
in message <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net> :
>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
>then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
No, it is not. There is nothing at all in evolution about
'inferior' or 'superior' at all. There is a group of bigoted
liars called Jehovah's Witnesses who want people to THINK there
is something like that.
Why do you associate with known liars like that?
Bonz
in message <7ck9um$u...@chronicle.concentric.net> :
>
> > > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in
> > evolution.
> >
> > That'a a nice lie Jabby. Did you come up with it yourself?
> >
> > Boikat
>
>please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
>are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a species
>is not an evolved trait?
Since none of this has anything to do with evolution, why are you
trying to bring it up?
Jabriol
> and Hitler had similar Ideas about the Jew's, he saw them as a threat,
> and
> > exterminated them, while his idea may be morally wrong.
> >
>
> "May be"?
if you subscribe to natural selection, He was acting based on evolutionary
instinct. since evolution does not entice morals he did nothing wrong.
if you subscribe to morals as given by creator, those morals are inmutable
and then it could be said Hitler was an imoral person.
> > thanks for proving correct. Any person with the power to do can change
> the
> > rules..
>
> That's human nature. Sad but true in some cases.
true in every case, after all it just evlolution.
> Well, if you don't concider hemophelia an "undesirable trait" then I
> wouldn't know what to tell you.
since it is pass down mostly by females, we can round them up, incinrate
them, and hence remove that trait from humanity... how else would you do it?
Jabriol
> >please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> >are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
species
> >is not an evolved trait?
>
> Since none of this has anything to do with evolution, why are you
> trying to bring it up?
you mean that to say that the evolution of man to dominate the female is not
evolution? and has no bearing?
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cqpt3$s...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > and Hitler had similar Ideas about the Jew's, he saw them as a
threat,
> > and
> > > exterminated them, while his idea may be morally wrong.
> > >
> >
> > "May be"?
>
> if you subscribe to natural selection, He was acting based on
evolutionary
> instinct. since evolution does not entice morals he did nothing wrong.
It was morally wrong, none the less. "Evolution has no bearing of the
morality of Hitlers atrocities.
>
> if you subscribe to morals as given by creator, those morals are
inmutable
> and then it could be said Hitler was an imoral person.
You don't even have to be a "believer" to say Hitler was comitting immoral
atrocities. On the other hand, ther are two point.
1) If Hitler had won the war, he'd be a hero, because descenters would have
been executed, or hustled off to labor camps and so on. The winner writes
the history books, remember?
2) Hitler commited his atrocities in the name of God and the Fatherland, so
it's not true that you can say a belief in a creator bestowed morals
automatically tag Hitler as imoral, since he believed in the creator God.
(Remember, to him, the Aryans were the "chosen".)
Boikat
Jabriol
> It was morally wrong, none the less. "Evolution has no bearing of the
> morality of Hitlers atrocities.
only because, per religious beliefs world wide, proved that to be case.
however, in reality, per evolution standards it was just part of the
evergoing process of evolution.
> 1) If Hitler had won the war, he'd be a hero, because descenters would
have
> been executed, or hustled off to labor camps and so on. The winner
writes
> the history books, remember?
agreed.
> 2) Hitler commited his atrocities in the name of God and the Fatherland,
so
> it's not true that you can say a belief in a creator bestowed morals
> automatically tag Hitler as imoral, since he believed in the creator God.
> (Remember, to him, the Aryans were the "chosen".)
>
> Boikat
> >
agreed. But did he act acording to his beliefs. or did he use religion to
further his cause. His actions were contrary to biblical teaching. Hence
his relgioyd beliefs were false and anti christian. Same occurance durring
the crusades, when the popes used their influence, more than the Bible.
Chriistiandoomed today has a lot of accountability for acting against
priciples taught by Christ. The Catholic Church in particular since they
claim to be God's kingdom on earth.
as of late, the head of the Catholic Church denounced the Bible, when they
aserted that Evolution is correct. then again for many years they supported
the world is flat, and center of the universe.
Drew Arrington
Anger pushes people away. Is that not a flight responce? Anger makes
people avoid YOU. You say 99% of people, when they are in fear, run
away (although, I don't know where you get that statistic), what about
the other 1%? What do they do? You agree that fear is a fight or
flight responce, yet disagree that fear is the root of anger. Yet, to
fight, people are generally angry. You say fear happens when a person
feels threatened, and I say anger happens when a person is feeling
threatened or violated (which is a threat to servival as we see it).
Anger is not the SAME as fear, it is just another form of expression
of it. I cannot rightly explain to you in words this connection, I
can just state what I "know" to be true through my experience of
myself and the experience explained to me by others doing in depth
self work. It is something that is experienced, not something that
can be handed over to another in the form of words in a book. I
cannot "prove" it to you. I can only explain why I "know" it to be
that way. Just as you can no more "prove" that I am wrong using this
medium. You can "know" that I am wrong for you and that's cool. I
may be "wrong", I can admit that much. For the moment, though, no one
has been able to disprove my "knowing" to my satisfaction, and
therefore I still hold the "knowing" as a "truth", at least for
myself. Thanx for the response.
Darwin's speed your way,
With gratitude,
Drew Arrington.
If someone trys to put the fear of god in you, doesn't that make you
angry?
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cr94d$7...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > It was morally wrong, none the less. "Evolution has no bearing of the
> > morality of Hitlers atrocities.
>
> only because, per religious beliefs world wide, proved that to be case.
> however, in reality, per evolution standards it was just part of the
> evergoing process of evolution.
Let's put it this way:Is the water cycle an evil consept because excessive
rain causes flooding, and snow avilanches kill people and destroy crops and
property?
>
>
> > 1) If Hitler had won the war, he'd be a hero, because descenters would
> have
> > been executed, or hustled off to labor camps and so on. The winner
> writes
> > the history books, remember?
>
> agreed.
>
>
>
> > 2) Hitler commited his atrocities in the name of God and the
Fatherland,
> so
> > it's not true that you can say a belief in a creator bestowed morals
> > automatically tag Hitler as imoral, since he believed in the creator
God.
>
> > (Remember, to him, the Aryans were the "chosen".)
> >
> > Boikat
> > >
>
> agreed. But did he act acording to his beliefs. or did he use religion to
> further his cause.
He used everthing he could get his evil, grubby little hands on.
> His actions were contrary to biblical teaching. Hence
> his relgioyd beliefs were false and anti christian.
Same with reguards to any part of derived "justification" he may have
gotten from evolution theory, or any of the "philosophies" that may have
been derived from evolution. So, if each were equally abused, why do you
single out evolution?
> Same occurance durring
> the crusades, when the popes used their influence, more than the Bible.
>
> Chriistiandoomed today has a lot of accountability for acting against
> priciples taught by Christ. The Catholic Church in particular since they
> claim to be God's kingdom on earth.
It's part of their dogma.
>
> as of late, the head of the Catholic Church denounced the Bible, when
they
> aserted that Evolution is correct.
They acknowledged that evolution was "more than a hypothesis", and it's
been quite a bit longer than the last few years since the Vatican let go of
the "word" (Note, lower case, as in the printed word, not "The Word") of
the Bible in favor of the "spirit" of the Bible.
>then again for many years they supported
> the world is flat, and center of the universe.
Yes, and as with those errors, they then accepted the reality that the
Earth was not flat, and the reality that the Earth was not the center of
the universe, so now, they are further accept the reality of evolution.
(But he did note that science cannot address the nature of the "spirit" or
"Soul", which is true.
Boikat
>
>
Mark Isaak
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>you mean that to say that the evolution of man to dominate the female is not
>evolution? and has no bearing?
"Evolution of man to dominate the female" is not evolution; it is you
bearing false witness. You constantly claim an association of evolution
with bad morals, but your actions show conclusive proof of a connection
between Creationism and bad morals.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
karl
snip.
>
> Chriistiandoomed today has a lot of accountability for acting against
> priciples taught by Christ. The Catholic Church in particular since they
> claim to be God's kingdom on earth.
>
> as of late, the head of the Catholic Church denounced the Bible, when they
> aserted that Evolution is correct. then again for many years they supported
> the world is flat, and center of the universe.
And the JW's have to answer to God for stripping Jesus Christ of his Divinity.
PPOI...@prodigy.net
> if you subscribe to natural selection, He was acting based on evolutionary
> instinct. since evolution does not entice morals he did nothing wrong.
First, and foremost, we (well most of us) have evolved an intellect and pro
social behaviors that allow us to overide our more primitive instincts. This
chara cteristic allows us to decide what is right and wrong. Secondly, Hitler
would have slowed man's evolutionary process by eliminating ethnic diversity.
By narrowing the gene pool to simply Aryans, we'd get just keep getting more
and more generations of essentially the same types of people.
Lastly, Hitler lost. The superior side won. Natural selection!
PPOI...@prodigy.net
> agreed. But did he act acording to his beliefs. or did he use religion to
> his relgioyd beliefs were false and anti christian. Same occurance durring
I dunno about that. The much praised pre-christian servant of God, Moses
tried to commit genocide. The Bible says God nearly did it in Noah's day,
and is gonna make another run for it in the future.
Today, that one and only true Christian group, the Jehovah's Witnesses await
the day that Jehovah will "cleanse" this earth of evil "worldlings, in a
massive "holocaust", so that this "pure" people and their "pure language"
can enjoy Christ's millenial reign. Gosh this sounds familiar....
James T. Savidge
Jabriol wrote:
> as of late, the head of the Catholic Church denounced the Bible, when they
> aserted that Evolution is correct. then again for many years they supported
> the world is flat, and center of the universe.
Please don't rely on what I or any secondary/third source may say regarding
what the Pope may have said on this issue.
Anyone that would like to read what the Pope actually said on this issue
please try either of the following.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.txt
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewrec.cfm?RefNum=2784
James T. Savidge, <tsav...@fastlane.net>, Friday, March 19, 1999
briand1
karl wrote:
> In article <7cr94d$7...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> snip.
> >
> > Chriistiandoomed today has a lot of accountability for acting against
> > priciples taught by Christ. The Catholic Church in particular since they
> > claim to be God's kingdom on earth.
> >
> > as of late, the head of the Catholic Church denounced the Bible, when they
> > aserted that Evolution is correct. then again for many years they supported
> > the world is flat,{its not???} and center of the universe.{its not?????}
>
> And the JW's have to answer to God for stripping Jesus Christ of his Divinity.
What is a JW and how can anyone take anything away from Jesus ????
woody Coleman
modern societies ever since the oldest profession we have had pimps they may be
considered the alpha males. With the cocaine usage in the 80's the alpha male
had a pocket full and was easily able to control a number of women at the same
time. Any more questions.
Jabriol wrote:
> > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> > species
> > > is not an evolved trait?
> >
> > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies where
> > the women rule the roost.
>
> in welfare america maybe..
>
> I think you be watching to much Xena..
>
> please tell us which country do they rule?
>
> so men donitae women as a social thing and evolution has nothing to do with
> it?
>
> > Also, "might is right" does not truely
> > apply to humans because most of us are able to control 'primitive'
> > impulses.
>
> no such thing as primative impulsive's, to suggest this would defy evolution
> entirely.
>
> > The exception being the low-brow knuckle-dragging wife beaters,
> > and jerk wads that kick their children out into the street permanaantly
> > because they do not "conform".
>
> nothing wrong with the above.. it is part of evolution.. natural selection,
> ya get rid of the garbage.. didnt hitler do this?
>
> no moral in evolution.
Steve Champagne
campb...@my-dejanews.com <campb...@my-dejanews.com>
wrote:
>I agree that there are certain people who by their
>conduct have have proved themselves to be hurtful or harmful to other
>individuals, but I don't see how choosing another religious denomination, or
>even not participating in an orrganized faith would merit exclusion from
>friends and family.
It doesn't any more than anything merits anything
else in any kind of absolute sense. Individuals just
arbitrarily decide that some things merit other things,
and that's the way the story goes. And it seems as
though individuals have difficulty in understanding the
merit-assignment/justice of other individuals.
It's just part of the "fun" of being an individual amongst
many other individuals! Yippeeeeeeeeeeee.......
>But I think that once a particular group starts trying to define what is
>false worship ( especially if both parties are believing in mostly the same
>thhing) they are usurping God's function. I mean, what human should be so
>arrogant to try to do God's job.
Given humanity, it seems to me that the more appropriate
question is, "what human *isn't* so arrogant as to try to
do God's job?"
I mean, we judge others *incessantly* inspite of being
told point blank that we're really in no position to be
judging others. And isn't that one of God's "jobs"?
And how about making images of God? Sounds like one
of God's jobs as well, and yet here we are worshipping
everything from Guinness Stout to the Beatles.....
(I have eight bottles of the former in my immediate future
even as I type.... mmm.......)
>My personal opinion is that if there really
>was sone true path to God, it would be a little more evident.
Do you mean to all, or to just you? I'll assume the former
and say your statement presupposes that individuals are
similarly capable of and willing to apprehend such.
>I think that
>if a person lives a good life and doesn't harm others, he is living within
>God. I think a choice of religious affiliation isn't something that is an
>absolute, I think the conduct is.
That's pretty radical! I mean, no excuses... no
"mysteries"... no "new light" to be waiting upon, etc.
Nah... couldn't possibly be right... makes too much
sense..... ;-)
--
I know we're the same because I hurt when I hurt you
and feel good when I treat you as though you are me.
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 2 lines, 106 characters
Geoffrey M. Laing
Organization: Total Sound
Message-ID: <01be724f$8fb773a0$d30565cb@carmen>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Path: modem19-pen-isp-1.one.net.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem19-pen-isp-1.one.net.au
Date: 19 Mar 99 21:19:49 GMT
Lines: 31
> And the JW's have to answer to God for stripping Jesus Christ of his
Divinity.
>
-------------------
I believe JW's do what God asks, they worship the Father IN the name of
Jesus. There is a warning in the bible to be careful NOT to worship the
creation.
Colossians 1:15
He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation;
Revelation 3:14
14 "And to the angel of the congregation in La搗搞i搾e'a write: These are
the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning
of the creation by God,
Revelation 1:1
1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him,
If Jesus were God why would God have to give him a revelation? especially
since both were in heaven?
Romans 1:24-25
24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up
to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even
those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered
sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created
Geoff
Geoffrey
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Path: modem19-pen-isp-1.one.net.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem19-pen-isp-1.one.net.au
Lines: 33
Splifford
> karl wrote:
>
> > In article <7cr94d$7...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
> >
> > snip.
> > >
> > > Chriistiandoomed today has a lot of accountability for acting against
> > > priciples taught by Christ. The Catholic Church in particular since they
> > > claim to be God's kingdom on earth.
> > >
> > > as of late, the head of the Catholic Church denounced the Bible, when they
> > > aserted that Evolution is correct. then again for many years they
supported
> > > the world is flat,{its not???} and center of the universe.{its not?????}
> >
> > And the JW's have to answer to God for stripping Jesus Christ of his
Divinity.
>
> What is a JW and how can anyone take anything away from Jesus ????
Jehovav's Witness. A.k.a. Watchtowerites, Armstrongites, etc. They, like
many crazy cults, say that they are the only true Xians. You may judge the
rest of their propaganda by the fact that they start out with a lie.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Jabriol
> And the JW's have to answer to God for stripping Jesus Christ of his
Divinity.
false christians might as well be answerable to God, to adding to Jesus
what does not belong to Him, and he himself does not accept -John 14:28
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cuumg$b...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > > agreed. But did he act acording to his beliefs. or did he use
religion
> to
> > > further his cause.
> >
> > He used everthing he could get his evil, grubby little hands on.
>
> exactly, he rally up the ignorance of the catholics to support him.
> Mussolini did likewise. But those who read and understood the Bible in
the
> proper way, knew that Hitler action was immoral. But, those who reject
the
> Bible and embrace evolution as the final origin man, hitler was just
going
> with the flow of u..h.... genetic mutation to benefit the survival of the
> hunan "aryan" race as he saw it.
No, he misused evolution just as well.
>
>
>
> > They acknowledged that evolution was "more than a hypothesis", and
it's
> > been quite a bit longer than the last few years since the Vatican let
go
> of
> > the "word" (Note, lower case, as in the printed word, not "The Word")
of
> > the Bible in favor of the "spirit" of the Bible.
>
> a known technique to keep the masses under control. over the centuries
they
> allow some pagan practice to remain while anti-biblical, it gave them
power.
Every religion has a schtick to sucker in the masses. Even J.W's.
> If evolution is the ongoing fad, they slight it as possible to be
> acceptable.
Evolution is no more a fad that thunder is a fad.
> I gues if evolution was correct..they are evolving to survive ;-)
>
Sure.
>
>
> > (But he did note that science cannot address the nature of the
"spirit"
> or
> > "Soul", which is true.
>
> because the term "soul" and "spirit" has been taken out of context of the
> original termed used as defined in the Bible.
No, not really.
>
> the soul is you, and spirit is what makes you move, in a nut shell.
> those were the defintion encountered in the Bible. that means that when I
> die
> my soul cease to exist, and my spirit is no longer.
Hmmm, Ya learn something new every day. Very "atheistic" in that aspect.
Boikat
Jabriol
> > agreed. But did he act acording to his beliefs. or did he use religion
to
> > further his cause.
>
> He used everthing he could get his evil, grubby little hands on.
exactly, he rally up the ignorance of the catholics to support him.
Mussolini did likewise. But those who read and understood the Bible in the
proper way, knew that Hitler action was immoral. But, those who reject the
Bible and embrace evolution as the final origin man, hitler was just going
with the flow of u..h.... genetic mutation to benefit the survival of the
hunan "aryan" race as he saw it.
> They acknowledged that evolution was "more than a hypothesis", and it's
> been quite a bit longer than the last few years since the Vatican let go
of
> the "word" (Note, lower case, as in the printed word, not "The Word") of
> the Bible in favor of the "spirit" of the Bible.
a known technique to keep the masses under control. over the centuries they
allow some pagan practice to remain while anti-biblical, it gave them power.
If evolution is the ongoing fad, they slight it as possible to be
acceptable.
I gues if evolution was correct..they are evolving to survive ;-)
> (But he did note that science cannot address the nature of the "spirit"
or
> "Soul", which is true.
because the term "soul" and "spirit" has been taken out of context of the
original termed used as defined in the Bible.
the soul is you, and spirit is what makes you move, in a nut shell.
Jabriol
> > if you subscribe to natural selection, He was acting based on
evolutionary
> > instinct. since evolution does not entice morals he did nothing wrong.
>
> First, and foremost, we (well most of us) have evolved an intellect and
pro
> social behaviors that allow us to overide our more primitive instincts
why should any of us has primitave instinct?
is evolution is correct, there is no such thing. Intellect as you call it,
is just an evolved trait, that human have by.. daaaauuuhhhh Chance.
as Boikat said winner writes history.
Jabriol
> What is a JW and how can anyone take anything away from Jesus ????
they only take what he gives freely.. john 17:3
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7d0nfp$r...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > > if you subscribe to natural selection, He was acting based on
> evolutionary
> > > instinct. since evolution does not entice morals he did nothing
wrong.
> >
> > First, and foremost, we (well most of us) have evolved an intellect
and
> pro
> > social behaviors that allow us to overide our more primitive instincts
>
> why should any of us has primitave instinct?
It's part of the ihnereted package. Besides, some of them are pretty
handy, like fear of falling, fear of fire, desire to eat, and so on.
> is evolution is correct, there is no such thing.
Wrong.
> Intellect as you call it,
> is just an evolved trait,
Yes.
that human have by.. daaaauuuhhhh Chance.
No.
>
> as Boikat said winner writes history.
Which has nothing to do with the above.
Boikat
>
>
David Johnston
>
> > > agreed. But did he act acording to his beliefs. or did he use religion
> to
> > > further his cause.
> >
> > He used everthing he could get his evil, grubby little hands on.
>
> exactly, he rally up the ignorance of the catholics to support him.
> Mussolini did likewise. But those who read and understood the Bible in the
> proper way, knew that Hitler action was immoral.
Would it have been moral had his victims been Amalekites? What if they
had been "witches"? When the worshippers of Baal were trapped inside
their temple and slaughtered to the last individual, was that moral?
But, those who reject the
> Bible and embrace evolution as the final origin man, hitler was just going
> with the flow of u..h.... genetic mutation to benefit the survival of the
> hunan "aryan" race as he saw it.
You are, of course, wrong and ignorant as ever. Since there is no such
thing as an "aryan race", Hitler had to be wrong.
mark
bijou2 <bi...@mweb.co.za> wrote in message
news:36eae...@news1.mweb.co.za...
> ...we speak out with fearlessness
> he is the god of true profesy
> all he foretells comes to be!!!!!!
>
>
> i am a jehovah's witness i am proud to be one i have been disveloshipped
> last year may and i am making a real effort to go back because i now know
> they live by the bible
jeez, they shit on you and you want to go back.. what a looser
mark
Gregg
>
> In article <7cjvff$l...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
> Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
> >
> > > just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can
> > > tell you. Lots of species don't even have males.
> >
> >evidence please?,
>
> Like I said, ask any actuary. Life expectancy tables shouldn't be hard
> for you to find.
More male children are born than female children. Evolution has spoken.
Jabriol
> More male children are born than female children. Evolution has spoken.
and did you know that in India, girls are aborted on purpose?
abortion is after all only a mechanism in evolution to control the female
population.