xero
-
Posts
1,750 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Everything posted by xero
-
People invariably relate experiences both good and bad. If you happen to have been in the same room as the event being reported, you have greater credibility with yourself if you agree with the judgment that it's "good" or "bad" because you were present. Of course this doesn't mean that your judgment is correct. A third person or even a fourth of fifth person might disagree. Eyewitness testimony isn't very good. This is why the police interview everyone they can when investigating a crime. No one expects the testimony to be consistent or correct. It's more like plotting points on a graph. The more points plotted, the more likely you have an accurate picture of a given graphed function. On the other hand it's important that the eyewitnesses not have time to rehearse their testimony or time to synchronize their testimony with those of others. Actual footage of an event from multiple angles is best and if you can also get audio that adds value. A person's attitude, their previous experiences and the things they believe to be true and righteous vary and this is true even among Jehovah's Witnesses. Now on the synchronization side of things we can see that people quite naturally seek out others who see things the way they do and are not particularly pleased if there isn't agreement. I see the grumbling lot not as liars, but as those who as a result of various factors has chosen to play a different movie of the annoying events in their lives and with a different music track to these events. I remember reading in a book somewhere that in a relationship the more things you have in common (as long as these are positive things) the better. I'm talking about a value system as well more importantly. But, they countered that having identical values isn't sufficient as it needs to be determined how these values rank in relation to each other. In a scarce or competing resource situation, how will these things be prioritized? Some people are more "feelings" oriented and if something doesn't feel right, even if it is right it isn't enough for them and this is why you have to dig deep and see what it is in your own mind (because we all have feelings) that feels right or doesn't feel right and really figure out why.
-
You can see the same situation w/regard to people who lost money in an investment scheme. Now you and I wouldn't say that anything valuable was lost by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but these have, but they adopt an invalid strategy for losing value - they spend more time arguing w/Jehovah's Witnesses. It's the sunk cost fallacy. We see this sort of thing in relationships all the time. How many people who after living perhaps 17 years as minor children to less than perfect (or even terrible) parents blame their lives decades later on their parents? I would argue that clearly these didn't feel they were getting a raw deal (in their view) until they felt they were and they felt that they wished they could have gone back in time and had a do-over. Who hasn't wished they could go back and change some decision? Point is that it's not baffling, but in many cases it isn't useful to continue to rail (at least in an emotional way - some adopt a more studious approach and write books contra-JW's) against decisions past-made. The other case is that these likely have social relationships which these would have likely wanted to retain, but for the decisions these have made, they can no longer maintain. Some feel honestly that they have made the right decision and that they could simply not play along w/it all no matter the cost, while others not as sure of themselves lash out in an attempt to provoke the kind of response which would justify the way they feel. I would say to these to perhaps consider the possibility that their own feelings are self-caused and that any happiness or sadness these are feeling are natural reactions to the way in which these events have been presented by the self to the self. Further, if what these are doing does not yield greater comfort or satisfaction it should be asked whether these are injuring themselves because they haven't accepted that they made decisions and that all that led to them becoming Jehovah's Witnesses and them leaving as well were their own decisions as well. Are these self-flagellating in an attempt to atone for the sins they imagined they made which led them to where they are today?
-
Or you could do like this one sweet little sister who said jauntily "Fine, your blood is on your own head then"
-
Walt Frazier was my idol as a kid.
-
Speaking of dress and grooming, I always wanted to wear the bright primary colors that some of the brothers who were also brothers in Houston would wear at the DC. I've always had ghetto taste, but my wife stops me.
-
Sometimes to that kindof thing I just say "Wow!" then shake my head while pursing my lips, turn around and keep walking. (I've found out from my wife that this can really piss people off)
-
That's rich. I suppose it's like when you go to a door and someone wants to argue w/you about the trinity. I ask "Have you spoken w/Jehovah's Witnesses about this before?" HH says "Oh, yes, many times" Then I say "Well I doubt I could be any more convincing than them. Could I ask you a question though?" HH brightens "Sure!" The I ask "Since belief in the trinity changes nothing as far as my own behavior is concerned, why do you suppose Jehovah's Witnesses take such an unorthodox view?" HH pauses ...I'm imagining he's not had this question from a theological pervert before... I ask "Are they incorrigibly unsaved or evil?" HH "I wouldn't say that." I ask "So are they just stupid? Or is becoming a cult member just really damaging to your brain so it doesn't work any more in a reasonable way?" HH "I wouldn't say stupid, and maybe I'd say they're a cult, but most seem pretty normal." Me - "Kindof odd isn't it. Something to think about. Have a great day!"
-
I think you're under the impression that I bothered reading everyone's remarks. I didn't. Nor do I need to to know everyone is just engaging in some sort of scriptural fencing exercise or shadow boxing. At this point in the online world every argument is almost useless if the goal is to convince someone other than ones self. Anyone who wants to find an answer to literally any question can google it and read and agree or read and disagree. In the end Jehovah will judge whatever it is you've judged and judge it rightly. Sure, people are going to go at it and maybe it keeps them sharp, but in no way is it anything in my view other than an exercise. In the online world you can never know if someone isn't just wasting your time. (like I am even now)
-
I read all this and what I see is a lot of spiritual shoulder surfing. Everyone needs to listen to their bible trained conscience and leave it at that. Usually this means that the reason you don't do a number of things is more due to custom or because you don't want to stumble people. Let's face it. People are idiots and they'd rather gawk around the room to see what everyone else is doing and do what the "prominent" do than to do their own homework and mind their own business and reap what they themselves sow. (of course they can't avoid the latter) Quite frankly this is why any remark made in person or in print by anyone which doesn't come w/scriptural support (which I can see as flowing from) I'll gladly ignore. If it looks like I'm paying attention that's probably because there is scriptural support. If you can't see it don't imagine I'm following the advise for any other reason than to avoid stumbling someone or because this is likely not the hill I'm willing to die on.
-
All this reminds me of an old circuit overseer we had who became our PO. He was from Guyana and told these great stories about witnessing down the Amazon in a canoe. Well they were well known JW's in their neighborhoor, and they had a dog named Buster. Now our old PO was quite friendly, but also blunt/polite about witnessing to his neighbors. So Christmas came and everyone in the neighborhood both knew of him and what he felt about Christmas, but they decided they would put up a big Christmas manger scene...and you can guess what happened. Right as they were admiring their handiwork Buster got out, ran down the street and grabbed the baby Jesus in his mouth and ran back to his dog house. All the neighbors present chasing him. I can imagine them all thinking "That Jehovah's Witness dog has stolen the baby Jesus!...I thought they weren't supposed to have anything to do w/Christmas!"
-
In a similar manner, JW's are the only religious group I know of who never stop voluntarily choosing to be rejected. This is a really healthy activity, even healthier if you do it solo in the evening.
-
Srecko's problems are w/Jehovah and it's a distraction and it's patently false that his issues have anything to do w/Jehovah's Witnesses. S - "Why circumcision Jehovah?" Jehovah - "Because I said so." S - "But whyeee?" Jehovah - "Think about it."
-
https://www.academia.edu/14029315/The_Name_of_God_Y_eH_oW_aH_Which_is_pronounced_as_it_is_Written_I_Eh_oU_Ah_Simplified_edition?email_work_card=title https://www.academia.edu/10728293/Gods_name_readable_but_unpronounceable_why https://www.academia.edu/33873583/Did_Jesus_Je_HoVaH_salvation_know_God_s_name
-
Of course under the mosaic law she'd have been put to death and you can't commit adultery against a dead person.
-
8 Now we know that the Law is fine if one applies it properly,* 9 recognizing that law is made, not for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless+ and rebellious, ungodly and sinners, disloyal* and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, 10 sexually immoral people,* men who practice homosexuality,* kidnappers, liars, perjurers,* and everything else that is in opposition to the wholesome* teaching+ 11 according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted. - 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Adding from the secular realm, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem which says essentially that w/in any given system of axioms there are statements which may be true which one is unable to demonstrate to be true w/o reference to additional axioms outside this system I'd say the legal take on any given specific circumstance can never provide a complete answer w/o reference to other axioms outside the accepted set. This is not to negate the general principles regarding the sanctity of marriage, nor did Moses who gave an allowance of divorcing on account of "the hardness of the heart" violate said sanctity, but w/in the imperfect realm of humans one could argue on legal grounds that the wilful murder of ones own children would be of sufficient moral reprehensibleness to allow a scriptural divorce on the part of the innocent mate. I could easily rabbinicize any number of scriptures which would allow for a divorce by following the general principles on which these are based.
-
I don't know about brave, but I can say I did more on my knees praying than I've ever done. Coming here are reading what others have thought about and in many cases struggled (and still are struggling with in some cases - me too) w/their faith has likewise been grounding. Made me think of this clip, just now....
-
This is certainly true. One thing I use as a metric for competency in other fields is this musing: X- "Hey xero, are you smart or stupid?" X-reply "It depends. I have taken IQ tests and they suggest I'm @150, but when I factor in my ADD it could simply mean I can get stupid faster than 99.9% of the idiots" X-"Sure, but don't you also quickly figure out how stupid you've been?" X-"I suppose that's true. What are you getting at?" X-"So, X, you've been working in IT since 1978, in many, many different capacities, mostly all highly technical. Would you call yourself an expert?" X-"I suppose some people would think that, but I know that what I know is way less than what someone else imagines I know. What I "know" is how to approach solving a technical problem. The rest are details and trial and error." X-"So that's the case w/you in your own field. What would cause you to imagine it wasn't the case w/every other expert?" X-"Good point!" So when I see an "expert" not display humility and act as if they've got it all figured out "the science is settled!" I know I'm seeing either an incredibly incompetent individual who has either shielded himself or been shielded from the consequences of his own incompetence so as to not have acquired the self-knowledge required to change his attitude, or a politician who's pushing an agenda (follow the money). Also, people following their own interests w/o collusion CAN look like a conspiracy, when it's simply group-think. (see all the hipsters who look alike - did they all get memos, or did they catch some social semiotics and change in behavior/looks because of these subliminal messages they've become attuned to?)
-
While I'm at it. You might want to back up on munching down those cbd gummies. They can jack w/your liver enzymes if you overdo - something I found out. Doctor - "Do you drink much?" Me - "Barely. Haven't had anything since covid since we didn't go out." Doctor - "Well your enzymes are a bit elevated." Me - "Could eating a bag of cbd gummies a week do it?" Doctor - "Ya think?" Not exactly the exchange, but a google search will warn you. I hadn't even thought it a possibility. No more cbd gummies for me.
-
You need to go back and do some serious reading w/regard especially to the Christian Greek Scriptures and the scholarship relative to their authenticity. Even skimming "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" would improve your understanding that what's in the scriptures and most importantly the Christian Greek Scriptures is better attested to than many historical accounts w/which no serious historian has difficulties with.
-
Conforming non-conformists make a big deal about individuality, actual non-conformists don't. "stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." - Romans 12:2
-
I get it w/some blacks, but white guys? It's all moot at this point, but to me the more I see social signaling done w/clothes, or hair or anything other than just trying to be clean and functional bugs me. You see it in hipsters where they all look the same. or the blue-haired tatted obese who drink their latte's at the nihilist cafe. I sort of appreciate it, because it lets me know who they are. Reminds me of: “May those who love us, love us; And for those who don't love us, May God turn their hearts; And if He doesn't turn their hearts, May He turn their ankles, So we will know them by their limping.”
