by Julie 93 Replies latest jw friends
That comment is so typicall of ones who now have no hope.
I've read Abbadons stuff, and I've read a little of your thoughts, gumby. Sorry to dissapoint, but I would wager that Abbadon has way more "hope" than you do. The neat thing about Abbadons "hope" is that it is in things connected to reality. Real hope, now there's a concept!
Sixofnine: What is the hope abbadon has that you could share with us?
I don't mean to sound sarcastic either....I would like to know.
Abaddon,
What belief structure is it that you believe I am hiding, please clarify? I have not stated a belief of mine in this thread. I have stated skeptism in 'a', and I do mean 'a' as in 'one', skeleton.
You said my stance lacks credibility, what stance? I stated skepticism, not a stance.
Would a JW questioning the WT and began to be skeptical of what they were taught lack credibility for there skepticism?
Your reply does not make sense.
Alan,
You say I resort to lying so as to cover my skepticism, is all skepticism lying to you Alan, or just when you are the one questioned?
You say I have no reason to doubt the so called genuiness of the skeleton you posted, why? Is this because you posted it.
Is everyone to believe whatever they are told is genuine without all the facts? You remind me of a JW elder who tells everyone to follow suit without questioning the mother organization.
You state that you have seen the bloody thing yourself in many references, are these references similar to the WT and AFAKE magazines? After all, JWs believe the references in the WT publications and live their lives by them. Wouldn't it be wise to be skeptical of things we see that we are not sure of, or should we follow along like a carp after a worm.
And Alan, you still have shown no proof that there are other finds such as this to support your theory.
So hey, if you can just go ahead and justify/explain/spin those scriptures I listed I might just change my view. Until then, I will remain where I am; Merely appreciating the gift of life I have without the haughty presumption I am entitled to more.
Respectfully--
Julie
You need to deal with the ones that I posted the commentary on. As far as life goes, it is a gift, every minute that you get. Too bad you don't realize that it doesn't end with a coffin.
Rex
Every time you post, Scorpion, you prove your thinking to be identical to that of Fundies the world around. You reject out of hand all evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas. You refuse to provide evidence for your "skepticism", you show virtually no reasoning ability, and you flat-out refuse to check evidence that would, for any normal person, take care of that "skepticism.
: You say I resort to lying so as to cover my skepticism,
That's right. You claim you're merely "skeptical", but you refuse to check positive evidence when it's handed to you on a silver platter, and you refuse to give any reason whatsoever for being "skeptical". That's proof of braindead fundamentalism and shows that you're not merely skeptical, you actively disbelieve the evidence you've been given. I.e., you believe the Turkana Boy skeleton is a hoax. Since you claim you don't, you're a liar.
: is all skepticism lying to you Alan, or just when you are the one questioned?
Ah, yet another standard technique of one who knows he has no evidence to back him up. Reject the evidence, then attack the messenger. I've got news for you, Scorpion: you're not questioning me, you're questioning the sources I gave you. Since you refuse to check those sources, your evasive technique is shown to be another attempt to lie.
: You say I have no reason to doubt the so called genuiness of the skeleton you posted, why? Is this because you posted it.
No. It's because you have no evidence, period. I've already challenged you to produce evidence; all you manage to come up with is more lame fundyish excuses.
: Is everyone to believe whatever they are told is genuine without all the facts? You remind me of a JW elder who tells everyone to follow suit without questioning the mother organization.
What bullshit. I didn't tell you to believe me. I provided three explicit ways for you to get solid references for yourself. Here they are again:
Type the words "turkana boy" at the google search engine and check out the dozens of references. There are many references to peer-reviewed technical articles such as in Nature.
Go to a library and read the book Origins Reconsidered by Richard Leakey.
Go to a library and read the article "Homo erectus Unearthed," National Geographic Magazine, November, 1985 (I had this as 1984 in my earlier post).
: You state that you have seen the bloody thing yourself in many references, are these references similar to the WT and AFAKE magazines?
Is Nature similar to those dumb magazines? How about a book by Richard Leakey, that is complete with lots of photos and a complete description of the discovery and the discovery team? How about National Geographic?
: After all, JWs believe the references in the WT publications and live their lives by them. Wouldn't it be wise to be skeptical of things we see that we are not sure of, or should we follow along like a carp after a worm.
No one is asking you to do that. I've given you explicit references and you've failed to look at them. I've asked you for specific information on why anyone should doubt the discoveries. You've provided nothing. So who is going a'whoring after the Fundies like a carp after a worm?
: And Alan, you still have shown no proof that there are other finds such as this to support your theory.
This is an excellent example of a completely braindead statement. Note: I do not have any theories about the Turkana boy. I've given you evidence printed in the scientific literature. You haven't even managed to state what you think my "theory" is. Nor have I suggested, nor has anyone discussed on this thread, anything to do with "other finds", whatever that is. In short, your last sentence here bespeaks of unbelievably unclear thinking.
At this point it's obvious that you have no interest in looking up evidence given you, or of providing evidence for your belief that "Turkana Boy" is a hoax. If you do one or the other, I'll discuss it with you. Otherwise, it's as useless writing to you as it is trying to convince Osama Bin Laden not to kill Americans.
AlanF
AlanF,
Still waiting for more of those Turkana boys to be unearthed so we know the lone one was not constructed by someone with an agenda. Kinda reminds me of the missing link, or maybe Bigfoot, what about the Lochness Monster?
AlanF,
I went back to the two sites you posted about the Turkana boy and read them 'again'.
I do not see how this find proves evolution as far as one living species turning or evolving into another. What if they found the buried skull of someone with the head of the Elephant man (John Meric)(sp), would these individuals that found the Turkana boy try to link the elephant mans skull to evolution? I wonder!
Alan F,
"I do not see how this find proves evolution as far as one living species turning or evolving
into another." is one of the latest missives from Scorpion. Please see my one and only previous post on this thread (i.e., why I do not try to reason with religionists). This is NOT a slight to religionists--some people desperately NEED religion (and society needs them to have religion, if you know what I mean). It truly is, like you said trying to convince a terrorist not to kill Americans. It's two different lines of thought: one based on scientific method, the other built on emotions and ideology. It's like trying to explain to a two year old how the internet works. Unless there is prior knowledge and the ability to grasp certain concepts, it's useless.
I in no way intend for this to denegrate anyone's beliefs. I have my own (I just don't peddle them). Everyone is entitled to believe as they wish.
Love,
B.
WW/Rex,
I see you are desperately trying to distract me from my questions on certain posted scriptures by bogging me down with all the unrelated bible content. You waste your efforts, I will not be deterred. You will either answer or admit you cannot.
--------------------------------------------------
You said:
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you --
Obviously, there are a couple of GOOD questions hiding in here:
Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies? --(Remainder of violent blather deleted for length)
Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)
What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?
Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?
------------------------------------------------------------------
You make a good point here WW, I am in full agreement that a God of love would not commit/order wholesale slaughter. So then what? Either the biblegod is a violent maniac or those who wrote the bible were LYING. I know this irritates you but it is SIMPLE.
The OT is filled with stories of God-ordered whoesale slaughter. The same applies to all of them. God is either a homicidal maniac OR the writers are LYING. You pick.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?
Were there any limits placed upon Israel in this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the orders?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, from what I have read each massacre seems to have different "limits". Sometimes every living creature was to be slaughtered, even livestock, other times the Jews were told to save the virgins and/or various valuables for themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?
--------------------------------------------------------
There are scores of them, you know that. That is the main content of the OT.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems similar with the main exceptions that the cities were destroyed WITHOUT human agency, and that the vegetation was destroyed. God used some type of natural disaster to accomplish the destruction.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I know you really like to credit yourself with rather complicated, well rounded views of all the aspects of scripture. Has it occured to you that maybe Sodom and Gomorrah fell victim to an earthquake and the barbaric nomadic tribe ("God's people") had extreme disdain for cities/civilization? Certainly a possibility to the open minded inquirer, which of course you are not one.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You said:
They were exposed to/had access to the pure message of God through Melchizedek--the priest-king of Salem--(who probably led Abraham to the true knowledge of God!). Nonetheless, they were extremely evil people (and who were proud of it--Is 3.9: The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.), and their crimes were both against God (Gen 13.13) and against people (Gen 18.20).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gee WW, this sounds so similar to what the people who attacked America are probably using for justification too. Barbaric.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
and the NT refers to it as an example of judgment-future (2 Pet 2.6) with a special emphasis on sexual perversion (Jude 7). The fact that 'all the men of the city' were involved in the intended assault on Lot, indicates that the 'outcry' must have come from surrounding areas--hence, the 'international' scope of their evil. The destruction was immediate and total, including the surrounding cities and the vegetation (Gen 19.25), and is even used as an example by our Lord in Luke 17.29.
----------------------------------------------------------
I have no doubt this was referred to in order to inspire fear in people so they would adhere to the teachings being propagated. As is the case with most of the bible. It is to instill fear so people will "believe".
---------------------------------------------------
You said:
It is important to note that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 25 years); (2) their crimes were perverse, public, and the cause of international protest/outcry to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?); (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wow WW. Doesn't this ring a bell with you? Isn't this the exact attitude of JWs?
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Flood of Noah
----------------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe the accounts of the global flood, I suspect it was a massive, horrible local flood. However I notice how you again talk about how they had access to "the truth" (as they say in WT-land) and since they didn't listen they were eliminated. Just like the JWs say will happen to those who don't join the cult. Does it not dawn on you the similarities in the reasoning here? But of course you reject it coming from the WT but not the bible. It's all the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
The Amalekite initiative looks like an ordered annihilation.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What an all-loving, forgiving God!!! What had the infants, children and livestock do? Nothing. Just another clear demonstration that biblegod is a horrible being.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I see, they are bad and so we to will do as they do. How enlightened.
------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
In each of these cases the peoples did NOT 'change behavior'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just like those who refuse to listen to the JW message of "hope". Are you at all seeing any of the similarities here?
-let's look at one people that DID: the "anti-Example" of Ninevah.
In the book of Jonah, we have an 'averted annihilation'.
The wickedness of the city is great; prompts God to intervene (1.1-2).
The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me."
God sends Jonah to pronounce what LOOKS LIKE an 'unconditional prophecy' (3.3f)--
Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city -- a visit required three days. 4 On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
Instead of turning a deaf ear (or even a scornful tongue) to Jonah, the people 'change direction' (3.5-9):
---------------------------------------------------------------
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Israelites had a bigger, better army and so unconditional surrender was their only option? Reminds me of the Taliban. Do it our way or die. Apparently barbarism is with us to stay.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
God responds to this "attitude adjustment" in grace (3.10):
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
(Notice that all during this judgment-time, God was still 'concerned' for Ninevah (4.10): But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?")
So, in this "anti-Example" you have a people, confronted with truth/warning, who respond and avert the annihilation.
------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe since the people complied with the demands of the Israelites and submitted to their religion they were spared a brutal attack. Just like what the JWs claim. Worship/believe like us and you'll be saved.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
There is an obvious pattern here:
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Now this is exactly what the WT teaches. Only they will be spared and all of us who scoff at their ridiculous teachings will perish as well as our innocent children etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
Notice that Abraham cannot have the land until the 'sin of the Amorites' reaches some 'maximum threshold'. This certainly LOOKS LIKE a judgment by God on the peoples of the Land. Also, notice that the evil treatment by Egypt of the Israelites (enslavement and mistreatment) are NOT 'evil enough' to warrant annihilation--only "punishment". We might therefore expect the 'sin of the Amorites' to be more extreme than that of Egypt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Or we might assume that the Jews were thinking there might be some hope of conversion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
16 "`Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
--------------------------------------------------------------
and yet we have Gen.38:6-10. Poor Onan gets struck dead because he wouldn't get his brother's wife pregnant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ok WW, I have addressed much of the total unrelated blather you posted in order to avoid answering for the scriptures I posted. I will stop here for two reasons. I didn't touch on the matters of incest, bestiality or child sacrifice. I listed specific scriptures and it is your turn to answer them or admit you cannot. Secondly, as you know doubt intended, it is too long for the time I have. Again, you chose to address, in an extremely lengthy manner (no doubt hoping for distraction) completely unrelated issues. I ask you to answer for a three little examples, you knew this when you wrote your post and then you post all this Other Stuff and claim you won't address mine because your post was already too long (by design I suspect).
So prove yourself honest, I have mostly met your unreasonable demand, now meet my reasonable one or admit you cannot.
Refusing to be deterred, likely to your dismay,
Julie
