I agree with Jaguar Bass, I find it hard to imagine that anyone would "jump from the fire into the frying pan" of another religion once they've erased the memory of the JW"s behind. Although most religions aren't as harsh as the JW's they are almost as harsh and all of them are clinging onto something that's been disproven. All one has to do is read the Bible with an open mind as they always tell you to do... very little of it is scientifically or morally creditable.
Why are people so afraid to question the authenticity of the Bible...
by zeroday 55 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
The wanderer
Dear Jaguarbass:
Yes, I think parts of the Bible are practical.
This is my exact quote:
"The book of proverbs for instance carries sound advice
and guidance if an individual is willing to apply it
in their lives.
In addition, governments such as the United States and
Great Britian have inpart used the Bible as a foundation
or cornerstone for making laws."
If it were not practical then why do major governments
adhere to it?
Just my perspective on things ...
Respectfully,
The Wanderer -
Guest with Questions
For me the "outstanding evidence leaving no room for doubt" is in the very non-random, bottom-up nature of evolution by natural selection, a very well-founded and solidly established theory of life on earth. The philosophy of creationism cannot hold a candle to it.
I don't have time today, because of Easter, to read all responses but this one caught my eye. I'm not picking on this particular person because quite a few people on this board believe this.
First what you state is a contradiction - outstanding evidence leaving no room for doubt - well founded and solidly established theory of life on earth.
Can someone show me this outstanding evidence. I've always been curious to know the theory of evolution. Can someone explain to me in simple terms what happened. If all things on earth evolved over a period of time, such as human beings, when does the evolution stop, or does it stop. I guess with randomness we will never know because randomness doesn't think; it doesn't care - if we survive as a human species or even if the universe continues to exist. It's all random; it does what it does - yet I see so many wondrous, intricate, complicated things that randomness could never explain.
I asked an atheist once what he believed and he said that was an oxymoron -atheist/belief. I don't see that. Everyone believes in something.
-
Little Drummer Boy
Hi GwC,
It is important for you to go and look up the exact definition for the word "theory" as is used in science. I bring this up since it was a focus of your post. Until you have a full and proper grasp of how that word is used when talking about evolution, it is useless to discuss the subject of evolution.
LDB
-
DJK
Many of them must jump out of the frying pan of being a witless and into the fire of being a christian.
I couldn't jump into the fire. Years of uneffective brainwashing that told me Jehovah is the one and only true God. I couldn't believe in Jehovah and I felt it was better not to believe in any God. You've tried the rest, now try the best just doesn't work in religion.
-
sammielee24
For thousands of years people have taken the Bible as the word of God. What would you do if you found out that it was NOT. How would your outlook on the world change.
People believe what they are taught. Some teachers are better than others. Research leads to questions and questions lead to more questions. The quest for answers gives us knowledge. From that knowledge we choose to box in our belief structure to suit our own personal needs. There is ample physical evidence of major personalitities in earlier times - the pharohs, the Egyptians, the Romans...why is there no such physical evidence of Jesus? of Moses? Why are there so many inconsistencies in the writings within the bible itself? By recognizing that the bible is the work of men, full of the perceptions of men and only men - especially after living a lifetime of never questioning - finding out it is not the word of God has destroyed any trust in or desire to be part of any organized religion. My morals haven't changed but my outlook on the world has. I now see that anything is possible, will be possible and has been possible. I see now that we are but cogs in a wheel of time and that those before us were no different than we are today. sammieswife.
-
Anti-Christ
I agree with Sammielee24. My outlook on life has change a lot. I think that to prove with out a doubt that god exist, you would have to know every law of the univers and if you would know every thing in the univers you would be god or godlike. I don't think that you could use science to prove god because science is the study of nature and god is outside of nature. So I think the only way to prove god is for him to reveal himself or herself.
-
Guest with Questions
because science is the study of nature and God is outside of nature
I don't think you can separate God from science.
It is important for you to go and look up the exact definition for the word "theory" as is used in science . I bring this up since it was a focus of your post. Until you have a full and proper grasp of how that word is used when talking about evolution, it is useless to discuss the subject of evolution.
If, as you say, the word theory in science is a fact, then I'm very confused. My understanding is that there are many theories today that conflict with each other. Which theory do you believe in? (these are just a few theories-now maybe some are obsolete and maybe some listed are duplicate, but worded differently, I wouldn't know)
Ekpyrotic Theory, Oscillatory Universe theory, Big Bang Theory,Lasma cosmology, String theory, Loop quantum gravity,Grand Unified Theory,Quantum mechanical theories,Varying speed of light theory
The Ekpyrotic Theory
-
Little Drummer Boy
If, as you say, the word theory in science is a fact, then I'm very confused. My understanding is that there are many theories today that conflict with each other. Which theory do you believe in? (these are just a few theories-now maybe some are obsolete and maybe some listed are duplicate, but worded differently, I wouldn't know)
Actually GwQ, I did not say anything of the sort. In fact, I did not define the word "theory" as it is used in science at all. I invited you to research the subject.
As to the rest of your comments, I will not be baited into debating something that you will not take the time to research properly. It is just that, on this board, every single time a person, such as yourself, begins a debate about creation vs.evolution from the starting point of not knowing the definitions, it turns into a flame war. There are many creationists here who can take up their side of the debate and do it justice, and I will sit back and watch with interest as both sides go at it. I usually don't comment on those threads because it is far more instructive for me to watch the debate.
However, from your comments, you are not one of these. I don't mean to offend (although there is no way I know to say it without doing so), but I have seen it happen here enough times to get a sense what a person's level of knowlege on the subject is. In all honesty, and for your own good (I really am trying to look out for you here), I was only trying to head off your inevitable scorching. Consider yourself lucky that Kid A didn't get here first, for instance.
Please don't be upset or anything with me Ok?
LDB
-
Seeker4
GWQ wrote: "If, as you say, the word theory in science is a fact, then I'm very confused. My understanding is that there are many theories today that conflict with each other. Which theory do you believe in? (these are just a few theories-now maybe some are obsolete and maybe some listed are duplicate, but worded differently, I wouldn't know)."
Guestw/? - You need to read some basic science texts if you're going to raise points like this. There are not "many theories today that conflict with each other" in the world of science. That is a statement that shows you have no idea what you are trying to talk about. Take five minutes and research the idea of scientific theory on the Net. At LEAST do that before you make these statements. Christ, you sound as ignorant of science as Ronald Reagan or George Bush! There is simply no excuse for it if you've got a computer, Internet access and an hour to spare!
You're right. You are very confused and you ought to do something about it.
S4