Is your conviction unshakable ?

Yes, because I believe in faith itself, kinda like studying knowledge.

Neuropteron said:

Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.

Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”

Does any of this seem familiar to you ?

Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely familiar. When people (any of us, none of us is magically immune to these very human impulses) have invested so much of themselves in what they believe, it's very difficult to walk away from those beliefs. It can be done, but can often be impossible.

Regarding cognitive dissonance: it's very uncomfortable to feel that cognitive dissonance, and people want to find a way to relieve that dissonance, so something has to give. When holding two dissonant ideas or feelings, to relieve dissonance they'll let go of one. But which one...

Neuropteron said:

According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.

In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.

Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.

Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”

Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.

We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?

Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?

Click to expand...

sounds like the flip side of the coin.....

SCIENCE would believe in it's own methods and equations

ooops

the numbers indicate the universe is MORE than can be seen or felt
the numbers indicate.....Something Greater

but hey....we'll just cal It...…
dark energy
dark matter

and let's ignore that God...……..was God of the Darkness
BEFORE He was Creator of light

danieldemol said:

It would, but since when are JWs allowed to be open minded without the risk of being shunned if they come to differing conclusions to their JW comrades? In other words your entire post is probably just more JW hypocrisy

Click to expand...

I don't see how being united in the same faith based on the Bible is a sign of hypocrisy.
Or are you saying that discord, strife and disagreement are a measure of honesty?

1cor 1:10
Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of though.

Neuropteron said:

I don't see how being united in the same faith based on the Bible is a sign of hypocrisy.
Or are you saying that discord, strife and disagreement are a measure of honesty?

1cor 1:10
Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of though.

Click to expand...

What i’m saying is that human perspectives naturally vary, it takes dishonesty to agree to unfounded dogma for the sake of ensuring a pseudoscientific level of unity.

In other words if we all agreed the earth was flat that wouldn’t make us correct, so we have to be free to hold differing ideas about reality without coercive attempts such as shunning to allow science to progress unhindered.

To tie this all back to my point which you missed, JWs are not allowed to be open minded (or they run the risk of being shunned), which is why it is hypocrisy to call for open mindedness when you are completely close minded on all your core doctrines for fear of loss of your family and social circle.

If one has an unshakable conviction then one also probably has a closed mind - nice attitude to have - not.

danieldemol said:

What i’m saying is that human perspectives naturally vary, it takes dishonesty to agree to unfounded dogma for the sake of ensuring a pseudoscientific level of unity.

In other words if we all agreed the earth was flat that wouldn’t make us correct, so we have to be free to hold differing ideas about reality without coercive attempts such as shunning to allow science to progress unhindered.

To tie this all back to my point which you missed, JWs are not allowed to be open minded (or they run the risk of being shunned), which is why it is hypocrisy to call for open mindedness when you are completely close minded on all your core doctrines for fear of loss of your family and social circle.

Click to expand...

JWs are not allowed to be open minded? That's a strange statement.
Open mindedness, as I understand it, means having a willingness to consider new ideas; unprejudiced.
As far as I know, this is what JWs do, that's why when they consider new ideas,, and find them erroneous, they reject them.
To accept those ideas without considering them, would be gullibility.
You seem to want them to be gullible, and accept what people believe, just because it is the accepted belief in a community.

They are open minded. That's why they became JWs in the first
place. By careful examination, and consideration of the facts.
They are open minded, as is evident by the fact that they decide if they want to remain a JW or not.
No one is holding them prisoner, mentally or physically.
If one does not belief something, a religious group believes, and still wants to be a part of the group because their family belongs to it, how would you describe that? Isn't that weakness?

I mean, when they become a JW, they do so despite family opposition. In fact, in some cases, it's so bad, their family reject them, oppose them, and even verbally and physically abuse them.
So why would a JW be afraid to leave family members if they reject JWs teachings?
Do you see how that just makes no sense whatsoever?
Just don't listen to people who say crazy things. Be open minded, and consider if what you are hearing, makes sense. And be reasonable, and get to know from mature Witnesses, what really are the facts.

Anthony Flew is not a JW, but it was his open mindedness that led him to the conclusion that there is a creator.
Others too, have carefully considered the facts, and reject dogma, even though they lost their community of science colleges and even their former job.
So besides open mindedness, it's also about courage - courage to reject what most people believe, if you find it is wrong.
Wasn't that the way Jesus was?
Do you think Jesus would accept evolution theory? LOL.

Neuropteron said:

According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.

In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.

Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.

Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”

Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.

We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?

Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?

Click to expand...

Yes, my conviction is unshakable. I have never seen strong evidence against theism. It's simple, there is no method of spontaneously having something spring in to being. Everything in nature arises from a cause. That means every chair was crafted by someone, every egg was laid by someone, every rock came from however rocks are made (igneous, sedimentary, and ummm the other one), and every plant came from a seed. Yet some people expect this to somehow not work for the universe itself.

I've noticed cognitive dissonance far more in atheists where they are convinced their "proofs" somehow shake this basic fact, than I personally have noticed cognitive dissonance in myself in regard to theism. Now, specific points (immaculate conception) yeah I may run into trouble.

Interestingly, in several threads I have participated in dealing with heliocentric theory and round Earth vs geocentric still Earth, both myself and other people have run into cognitive dissonance. Somehow, round Earth types can explain away the fact that none of us feel any momentum or anything really from the Earth orbiting and rotating, nor is being "upside down" in the southern hemisphere perceivable, oh yeah and the fact that a rotating object would necessarily have to be facing away from where it should be (180 degrees) at some point during its orbit meaning midnight at noon, basically waving it away to constant velocity (even though nothing in nature aside from water can constantly move) and gravity and what are you talking about thar last one is stupid (and you're stupid).
And I can't adequately explain why the southern hemisphere all sees the same sky. This is only one real issue that I remember, but any attempt to explain it away doesn't seem to ring true.
This implies that on some level BOTH of us are wrong. That there is some kinda third model, like a split upright Earth but that idea leads to all kinds of geographical weirdness. So I dunno.

Neuropteron said:

According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.

In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.

Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.

Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”

Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.

We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?

Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?

Click to expand...

The problem with the idea of cognitive dissonance it seems to me is that there is no distinction between a paradox generated by a sufficiently comprehensive rational system of truth and a less comprehensive rational system. Every comprehensive system of truth will generate paradox that might present the knower with divergent truths. This is a feature of human awareness just as much as it is a problem with ones epistemology.

Even within science we have cognitive dissonance in well established theory such as particle-wave duality. In morality we have rules and context which generate divergent truths. In our sensory experience we have a world of truth and selective appearance not to mention illusion.

In fact our two eyes map sensory input into the cortex in two separate hemispheres. These two maps of the world are then compared and where there are differences in the positions of edges, there is information about the depth dimension in those otherwise two dimensional maps of the world.

Cognitive dissonance is so deep of a cognitive experience that using it as a way to indicate a problem with ones epistemology is actually a little naive IMO.

Neuropteron said:

According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.

In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.

Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.

Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”

Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.

We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?

Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?

Click to expand...

To get at ones deepest truth your have to get into their story and beyond that their unconscious psyche...you have to reach into their dreams...not their rationalizations no matter how learned.

nPeace said:

You seem to want them to be gullible, and accept what people believe, just because it is the accepted belief in a community.

Click to expand...

That’s not what I said at all

They are open minded, as is evident by the fact that they decide if they want to remain a JW or not.
No one is holding them prisoner, mentally or physically.

Click to expand...

Shunning won’t work on everybody, but I bet it works on many people holding them prisoner mentally.

If one does not belief something, a religious group believes, and still wants to be a part of the group because their family belongs to it, how would you describe that? Isn't that weakness?

Click to expand...

You are victim blaming here, they shouldn’t be put in a position where they face the loss of their family and friends for the sake of their scientific beliefs.

I mean, when they become a JW, they do so despite family opposition. In fact, in some cases, it's so bad, their family reject them, oppose them, and even verbally and physically abuse them.

Click to expand...

That’s whataboutery on your part. If they are sometimes abused by non-believers (which is wrong) that doesn’t give believers an excuse to behave coercively.

So why would a JW be afraid to leave family members if they reject JWs teachings?
Do you see how that just makes no sense whatsoever?

Click to expand...

No, human weakness exists. Some people cave in to peer pressure.

Others too, have carefully considered the facts, and reject dogma, even though they lost their community of science colleges and even their former job.

Click to expand...

Actually I bet that shunning is rare in the scientific community. So possibly a stretch to say they lost their community of science colleagues. They may have lost teaching positions but it would be rare for them to lose their job as taxi drivers for not believing in evolution.

So besides open mindedness, it's also about courage - courage to reject what most people believe, if you find it is wrong.
Wasn't that the way Jesus was?
Do you think Jesus would accept evolution theory? LOL.

Click to expand...

Jesus didn’t teach evolution because people didn’t have knowledge of it back in those days. If Jesus was as intelligent and truthful as He is cracked up to be I have no doubt that upon being adequately informed of evolutionary theory He would accept it as the most reasonable theory to explain the known evidence.

I see faith is built upon our convictions being shaken, tried and tested.

If convictions were not alterable, Faith would become static and useless.

Thus our ability to alter our convictions can build Certitude, to which can become unshakeable.

"... Fear ye God and follow not your idle fancies and corrupt imaginings, but rather follow Him Who is come unto you invested with undeniable knowledge and unshakeable certitude..."

Regards Tony

danieldemol said:

That’s not what I said at all

Click to expand...

You did not say it, nor did you have to.

danieldemol said:

Shunning won’t work on everybody, but I bet it works on many people holding them prisoner mentally.

Click to expand...

What does that mean. Lost me there.
If a person feel like their are mentally in captivity, it's time to break free. What's stopping them? Perhaps their own mental prison they locked themselves in.

danieldemol said:

You are victim blaming here, they shouldn’t be put in a position where they face the loss of their family and friends for the sake of their scientific beliefs.
Put in a position where they face the loss of their family and friends for the sake of their scientific beliefs?

Click to expand...

This is making absolutely no sense to me.
Do you know that if a person chooses to do something or not do something that person would make the choice based on if they think it's the best choice, rather than if someone approves or not?
This happens in almost every situation in life.
It is about respecting each person's choice.
If for example, a person chooses a gangster's life, and his parents disapprove, the person if not selfish, will consider that their parents have a different perspective.
It's the same with those who choose a "gay" lifestyle. Or, if one chooses no longer to be associated with the Christian congregation.
In all these situations, both parties are hurting, because of family ties, but both respect that each individual will make their own choice... with whatever consequences.
The parents can whine about how their son is breaking their heart, but they need to respect their son's choice.
The son may whine, that their parents are not supporting him, but he need to respect their choice.
If the parents feel they can't have him live under their roof, he need to respect that, and realize that as a grown man he needs to live with the consequences of his choice.
If the parents believe that they are not to speak to their son, as part of their faith's belief, then he needs to respect that.
Or is he only thinking of himself, and don't care about his parent's choice?
Did you think about that? It is the parent's choice. No one has a gun to their head, saying, "Don't talk to your son" They made the choice based on what they believe. In the same way they make the choice to go to prison rather than go to war, or go to prison rather than practice their faith, or read the Bible.
Going to prison isn't something pleasurable. Losing a son or not speaking to him isn't pleasurable. However, they choose to accept both, in harmony with their faith.

Why is this giving you trouble. I think it is because of your view of JWs. It has nothing to do with reason. If Bahaullah said it, I am sure you would have no problem with Bahais practicing it... unless you couldn't care less what Bahaullah said.

danieldemol said:

That’s whataboutery on your part. If they are sometimes abused by non-believers (which is wrong) that doesn’t give believers an excuse to behave coercively.

Click to expand...

Trust me. There is no attempt on believers part to use any action of anyone, as an excuse to behave like them.
Believes follow the scriptures, which Bahais interpret different to what believers read.

danieldemol said:

No, human weakness exists. Some people cave in to peer pressure.

Click to expand...

Then you are saying everyone is courageous. That's not true. Human weakness exists.
I agree some people cave in to peer pressure. Persons should try not to, but it happens with the weak - especially spiritually weak and immature.

danieldemol said:

Actually I bet that shunning is rare in the scientific community. So possibly a stretch to say they lost their community of science colleagues. They may have lost teaching positions but it would be rare for them to lose their job as taxi drivers for not believing in evolution.

Click to expand...

I am not in the scientific community, but just go on line and you will find it is documented that it has happened and there is nothing that shows things have changed.

danieldemol said:

Jesus didn’t teach evolution because people didn’t have knowledge of it back in those days. If Jesus was as intelligent and truthful as He is cracked up to be I have no doubt that upon being adequately informed of evolutionary theory He would accept it as the most reasonable theory to explain the known evidence.

Click to expand...

What? No Jesus taught the truth. If evolution were a fact Jesus would teach it.
Am I hearing you right? This is truly a marvel.
Do you think Jesus is waiting for people to teach him what is true? Amazing!

nPeace said:

Why is this giving you trouble. I think it is because of your view of JWs. It has nothing to do with reason. If Bahaullah said it, I am sure you would have no problem with Bahais practicing it... unless you couldn't care less what Bahaullah said.

Click to expand...

You got me on the second part - as a liberal I couldn’t care less what Baha’u’llah said if it were demonstrably false.

What? No Jesus taught the truth. If evolution were a fact Jesus would teach it.
Am I hearing you right? This is truly a marvel.
Do you think Jesus is waiting for people to teach him what is true? Amazing!

Click to expand...

I don’t think Jesus is *waiting* to learn anything, in the spirit world He is capable of learning from those who have greater knowledge than He does.

danieldemol said:

You got me on the second part - as a liberal I couldn’t care less what Baha’u’llah said if it were demonstrably false.

Click to expand...

Okay. Thanks for that.

danieldemol said:

I don’t think Jesus is *waiting* to learn anything, in the spirit world He is capable of learning from those who have greater knowledge than He does.

Click to expand...

You've got me curious as to whom you believe are those with greater knowledge than Jesus has.

nPeace said:

Okay. Thanks for that.


You've got me curious as to whom you believe are those with greater knowledge than Jesus has.

Click to expand...

Darwin, Einstein, why i’d even wager RF’s @Polymath257 has more knowledge of the physical world than Jesus by leaps and bounds

danieldemol said:

Darwin, Einstein, why i’d even wager RF’s @Polymath257 has more knowledge of the physical world than Jesus by leaps and bounds

Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh, Dan.

danieldemol said:

To tie this all back to my point which you missed, JWs are not allowed to be open minded (or they run the risk of being shunned), which is why it is hypocrisy to call for open mindedness when you are completely close minded on all your core doctrines for fear of loss of your family and social circle.

Click to expand...

If your premise that JW's belief is based on the fear of being "shunned" in that case, yes, it would be hypocritical.
But your premise is wrong, the basis for JW's belief is analysis of Bible doctrines followed by understanding them, should this knowledge lead to acceptance then, and only then, is a personal decision made to join a brotherhood of believers and a dedication to Jehovah.

The point you make is valid in the sense that should a person not believe and nonetheless remain a JW simply because of social acceptance, then and only then would that be hypocritical on his/her part.
To say that this stance is taken by a large number of JW is not correct.

It is also an incorrect assumption on your part that shunning is a part of JW’s social makeup and that it is used to force unity amongst them.
Only dis-fellowshipped members are “shunned” and this is done in accord with Bible guidelines to those that unrepentedly commit serious wrongdoing.

Neuropteron said:

It is also an incorrect assumption on your part that shunning is a part of JW’s social makeup and that it is used to force unity amongst them.
Only dis-fellowshipped members are “shunned” and this is done in accord with Bible guidelines to those that unrepentedly commit serious wrongdoing.

Click to expand...

I think that disfellowshipping people for apostasy could be a sign that shunning is part of JW’s social makeup to force unity.

From Wikipedia;
‘If a baptized Witness teaches contrary to Witness doctrines, it is considered apostasy and grounds for disfellowshipping. A 1981 letter to overseers—reproduced in a book by former Governing Body member Raymond Franz—directed that a member who "persists in believing other doctrine", even without promoting such beliefs, may also be subject to disfellowshipping.[57] Elders usually try to reason with the individual before such action is taken.[58] If a person believes that a teaching should be adjusted or changed, he is encouraged "to be patient and wait on Jehovah for change".[59]The Watchtower states that "apostates are "mentally diseased," that they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings, (1 Timothy 6:3, 4 [NWT]) and "to avoid contact with them." (Romans 16:17 [NWT]);[60][61] Some have stated that this applies to all individuals who leave the organization.[62][63]’

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline

Thief said:

but hey....we'll just cal It...…
dark energy
dark matter

Click to expand...

Science is getting there. They are not as unintelligible as a God.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

"... Fear ye God and follow not your idle fancies and corrupt imaginings, but rather follow Him Who is come unto you invested with undeniable knowledge and unshakeable certitude..."

Click to expand...

Even a high school graduate knows more than who came.