I am not complaining I just really cant imagine doing it. It seems so freaking cut and dry... reasoning with unreasonable people makes my face hurt
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
caliber
In a perfect case of law evidence and facts adds up to established the truth and a proper conclusion.
Facts may be facts but to assume that individual facts establish truth may be wrong
Factual evidence helps to establish the truth .. but motive and intent are essential to understand. such . Also witnesses are only required to answer what they are in a postion to know
Here are two acceptable objections in a court of law with regard to questioning a witnessA witness may only testify to facts that are within his or her personal knowledge.
(Evid. Code, § 403.) Objection:Lacks Personal Knowledge
An attorney cannot ask the witness to answer a question for which he or she lacks
foundation.
(Evid. Code, § 400, et seq.)http://www.calhr.ca.gov/Documents/making-your-case-before-spb-handout-3.pdf
The scan from the Oct 15 1913 Watchtower says:
"It is for each to accept or reject the facts" ( concerning the 1914 countdown)
found that they would use the word "facts" instead of "evidence" or some other word. To me, when you use the word "facts" it means
it is beyond rejection to believe otherwise. It's like they were trying to allow themselves room for a later rejection of looking to a certain date but at the end of the sentence they insert a word that does not allow room for any other conclusion but to believe what they are pointing at."
~~~NJYMy question did the WT. have all the facts right ? What of the great court case of God about the rightfulness and rightousness of his actions
do we have all the facts ? Is it simple or realistic to make the proclaimation.... ."It is for each to accept or reject the facts".
Isaiah 55:8-9
New International Version (NIV)
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord .
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts -
adamah
Caliber said- Here are two acceptable objections in a court of law with regard to questioning a witness:
1) A witness may only testify to facts that are within his or her personal knowledge.
(Evid. Code, § 403.) Objection:Lacks Personal Knowledge
2) An attorney cannot ask the witness to answer a question for which he or she lacks
foundation.
(Evid. Code, § 400, et seq.)Caliber, that's a step in the right direction, since you're looking at the standards of evidence used in modern judicial systems.
So in the principle you cite, why are you qualified to serve as a witness and testify on the existence of God, since you (along with every other believer) lacks foundation and personal knowledge on the question?
Caliber, you then quoted Isaiah 55:8-9:
New International Version (NIV)
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord .
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughtsHowever, the Bible contradicts that whole "God is ineffable" claim (esp when it comes to MORAL issues), since the entire story of the Garden of Eden is based on the plotline that mankind stole the "wisdom of the Gods" from Jehovah, when the first pair disobeyed God to eat the wisdom-bestowing fruit (where wisdom is the 'fuel' needed to make moral decisions).
God later admitted in Genesis 4 that mankind HAD in fact "become like Gods, knowing good from evil" and hence had attained moral equivalence with God; Jehovah had to block their access to the Tree of Life in order to prevent humans from gaining immortality, the only remaining difference between humans and spirit beings, per the Genesis account.
In fact, Jehovah verifies that mankind possesses morality in order to make judgments on fellow humans on matters of life and death, since capital punishment was delegated to mankind after the Flood; God even gave humanity a little pep-talk in Genesis 9 when He delegated Divine authority to humans, reminding mankind that man was made in "His image" i.e. possessing traits of logic similar to Gods.
Hence God felt we possessed morality sufficient to judge our fellow humans after the Flood, and we've a long history of developing the moral codes we follow today (including prohibiting actions that the God of the Bible endorsed, eg slavery).
Adam
-
cofty
1) A witness may only testify to facts that are within his or her personal knowledge. - Caliber
If the tesimony of a witness is contradicted by known facts then we are right to reject their tesimony, however sincerely they present it.
Theists assert the following..
Their god created the world and that he is wise, knowing, powerful, immanent and loving.
However there are facts for which the theist must account.
On 26th December 2004 their god did observe a wave grow into an tsunami and drown 250 000 innocent men, women and children.
Unless they can offer a reasonable answer as to why their powerful, knowing, loving god failed to take action, we must reject your testimony and may charge you with perjury.
"Its a mystery" or other similar prevarications are not admissible.
-
caliber
In fact, Jehovah verifies that mankind possesses morality in order to make judgments on fellow humans on matters of life and death, since capital punishment was delegated to mankind after the Flood; God even gave humanity a little pep-talk in Genesis 9 when He delegated Divine authority to humans, reminding mankind that man was made in "His image" i.e. possessing traits of logic similar to Gods.
Hence God felt we possessed morality sufficient to judge our fellow humans after the Flood, and we've a long history of developing the moral codes we follow today (including prohibiting actions that the God of the Bible endorsed, eg slavery).
Adam
So because a hockey captain is given authorization for certain things it means that he can challange the coach and team owner for total power
and authority ?
In ice hockey, the captain is the player designated by his team as the only person authorized to speak with the game officials regarding rule interpretations when he is on the ice. At most levels of play, each team must designate one captain and a number of alternate captains (usually two) who speak to the officials when the captain is on the bench. The captain wears a "C" on his jersey, while the alternate captains wear an "A".
Officially the captain has no other responsibility or authority, though depending on the league or individual team, he may have various informal duties, such as participation in pre-game ceremonies or other events outside of the game. As with most team sports that designate captains, the captain is usually a well-respected player and a de facto team leader.
Because God gave some power and authority over other human's does this mean He abdicated ? Or maybe granted them at least equal authority
with him ?
Abdication is when a monarch, such as a king (or queen) or emperor (or empress ) gives up or relinquishes his or her office and power
-
adamah
Cofty said- "Its a mystery" or other similar prevarications are not admissible.
Actually, claiming that it's a mystery would be OK, since it's basically saying, "I don't know".
HOWEVER, most believers would be better off by just saying, "I don't know, but I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt, and declaring Him as innocent anyway".
To play believer's advocate, though, it would actually be acceptable and in accord with the principles of law, since the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to make their case to prove guilt (i.e. using the principle of "innocent until proven guilty").
Of course, it's impossible to prove a fictional character guilty of anything, since..... uh, it's a fictional character.
And we're back to the need of believers to exercise skeptical thinking by rejecting claims of Gods existence BEFORE examining evidence, and accepting it as an article of faith as if it's true.
Adam
-
tec
I don't know, but I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt, and declaring Him as innocent anyway"
Isn't that the very backbone of our justice system?
Innocent unless proven guilty?
Peace,
tammy
-
cofty
I have no idea what the hockey analogy was about.
It is not a case of innocent until proven guilty.
Thesits charge god with mass murder every time they thank him for their food or ask for healing or a job or a parking space.
This queston is not a problem for deists or for others who define god in some vague amorphous way.
Theists ae bold. They claim to have a huge body of detailed knowledge about their god. They will defend to the death their belief that god is powerful, knowing, loving and involved in the minutiae of their lives.
Asserting that leaving a quarter of a million innocent people to drown is a mystery, while also claiming that god heals their athelete's foot or whispers banal nonsense in their ears is rank hypocrisy.
-
adamah
Caliber said-
So because a hockey captain is given authorization for certain things it means that he can challange the coach and team owner for total power and authority?
Caliber, you seem to be confusing the terms 'delegation' and 'abdication'; I used the term delegation for a very good reason, since God delegated His Divine authority to mankind to decide certain moral issues, and actually authorized mankind to punish OTHER moral issues (eg adultery or homosexuality, where the prescribed punishment was death).
Delegation is a post-hoc (improvised) system, where the delegate can screw up and be removed from their position by the one who delegated their powers to them. It happens ALL the time in the OT, where a certain King disappointed Jehovah by failing to perform up to snuff, and suppoedly was booted out of their job. In fact, the entire basis of the OT is a series of stories that excuse God's seeming failure to act on behalf of His Chosen People, by engaging in the same-old excusiologies of blaming the victims, etc.
Administering a system of criminal justice requires exercising independent morality and thinking, which is kind of the irony: all believers exercise independent morality when consulting the Bible, since the decision of which scriptures to rely upon involves the use of discretion and judgment. Hence believers only need to hunt-and-peck for a scripture which justifies the act they wanted to do, anyway, where there's a scripture to justify seemingly every action. The only question is if you can get anyone else to agree to your post-hoc rationalizations, which is why the GB is the only authorized party who gets to interpret God's will.
In fact, since the Bible makes a point of repeatedly proclaiming how horribly-flawed a human's moral compass is (to point to the need to rely on God's "superior" morality), then HOW did believers make the decision that God's morality WAS IN FACT SUPERIOR to theirs, in the first place, without making a moral decision that required use of their "flawed" moral compass?
Could THAT decision to trust God's morality in fact be WRONG? If they answer anything but 'yes', then they're intellectually-dishonest, since it's a catch-22, a logical inconsistency, since the believer wants to have their cake and eat it, too, when a rational person could see the two positions are mutually-exclusive.
Adam
-
adamah
Cofty said-
Asserting that leaving a quarter of a million innocent people to drown is a mystery, while also claiming that god heals their athelete's foot or whisps banal nonsense in their ears is rank hypocrisy.
And that's where our points are now converging: believers engage in rampant post-hoc rationalizations (whether for perceived blessings OR for perceived punishments) by selecting a fitting scripture, based on THEIR current wants and desires.
For tragedy befalling a fellow believer, the other believers select from the following buffet menu of options:
1) They weren't actually as good as they seemed to be, but had committed some unknown sins in secret for which God is now punishing them. God punishes the evil-doer, even those who cover their sins from other humans.
2) They were good and hadn't committed any sins for which they're now being punished, but as the Bible says, "unforeseen events befall all".
There's an answer for every need, since the Bible is like a Hallmark Card Store, filled with a card carrying a sentiment designed to express every need and occasion.
Adam