Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA 98 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sea Breeze I strongly dislike it when people try to force me to admit something (or try to force me to do anything else) - even when it is something I am not ashamed of and something I am not afraid of revealing. I also don't like it when people try to manipulate me to do things, even things which I would otherwise not mind doing (or even things I would like to do). I value my freedom. That is part of the reason why thus far I have avoided answering your question to me of "Why can't you admit that it is objectively morally wrong for someone to murder you?" Furthermore, I don't like your inclusion of the word "objectively" in the question you asked. On the topic of morality I don't want to be figuratively 'pigeon holed' into classifying my views as objective or not objective, much as many people don't want to be classified as liberal or conservative or of any other political label (or even of creationist or evolutionist or evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist, or deist or pantheist or monotheist or polytheist or atheist).

  If and when I decide to say "it is morally wrong for someone to murder me" or if and when I decide to say ""it is not morally wrong for someone to murder me, I will do so under my own terms and at a time and manner I choose, and not under coercion.

  See my words above regarding the following words you said to me: "Do you really need scientists, the bible or someone else to give you permission to believe this? Is your mind that far gone?"

  A number of your comments in posts you made today in this topic deeply offend me, and thus partly of the resulting anger I feel right now, I am currently defying your request/demand to me to answer your pet question.
  
• 

  ExBethelitenowPIMA

  Sea Breeze3 hours ago

  It all comes down to proof.

  @PIMA - Have you tested this statement to see if it is true?
  

  See what I'm saying? If your truth statement about poof, can't be proven then it contradicts itself and logically should rejected by its own standard.

  -

  Yes constantly testing and challenging. If there is no proof then I’m correct to remain agnostic. This is no contradiction this is the very essence of what agnostic is at its core.

  Have been challenging many on here to prove evolution and it always comes down to the emperors clothes con.

  Cofty just says you need to read more science books and implies you are just not smart enough to see the invisible clothes.

  I challenge once again anyone please provide proof of evolution where is the simple pithy proof? Where is the fossils or the archeological findings that can prove evolution?

  Please don’t revert back to the emperors new clothes con.
• 

  cofty

  where is the simple pithy proof?

  Exactly the same sort of genetic evidence that is used every day to prove paternity. If you can't or won't understand it please don't ever serve on a jury.

  You have already admitted that you have never read a science book in your entire life so don't pretend you are actually interested in considering the evidence.
• 

  cofty

  Here are FORTY pieces of evidence...
• 

  ExBethelitenowPIMA

  That 40 pieces of evidence is exactly the emperor’s new clothes. Just believe he has clothes on because we say he does.

  I like to think I have critical thinking skills.

  Please give me the one best possible piece of evidence of evolution

  not 40 vague ones, just the one best one?
• 

  ExBethelitenowPIMA

  How can Exactly the same sort of genetic evidence that is used every day to prove paternity prove evolution?

  the emperor’s clothes really are beautiful even though I can’t see them myself other people say so
• 

  TonusOH

  Sea Breeze: @TonusOH - No, I'm not saying that.

  Okay, I understand what you mean. In a community or society, individuals can agree on a set of moral values and codes of conduct, which create incentives to avoid certain behavior. Wouldn't a group of people, absent a god, be able to come to a consensus that murder is wrong? The reasoning seems pretty clear.

  But one of those people could decide he does not agree with this set of values and reject the code of conduct. We are aware that this has always happened. According to the Bible, the first murder was committed by Cain. Was he unaware that killing Abel was wrong? His punishment was that he was allowed to flee with a wife and found a city. How would this have impressed upon him the immoral nature of his action?

  If God can determine moral values and codes of conduct, but cannot prevent people from going their own way, that doesn't seem different from a human society that does the same. What am I missing?
  
  
• 

  cofty

  ExB - you are intellectually dishonest. Enjoy life in your self- imposed thought bubble.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Yes constantly testing and challenging.

  @PIMA - I wasn't trying to offend you personally. My point is that it is a worthy endeavor to examine truth statements to see if they self implode or not. We were never allowed to think logically as JWs. They just ran over us mentally regardless of whether or not the doctrines were consistent with the New Testament.
  
  For example, we are told in scripture not to trust man. So what did we do? We trusted implicitly in men to the point where little by little we came to believe the GB were the mouthpiece of God himself... instead of his word. I have to own that.
  
  Gal. 1: 8-9 says that if we preach anything the apostles didn't preach we are cursed. So, what did we preach? We preached a gospel that required rejecting the the new covenanat that is explicitly "for the forgiveness of sins". (Mt. 26: 27-28) I have to own that too.

  Once we leave the Word of God, a person could end up anywhere. They could end up like DJW, unable to state if it is objectively wrong if someone murders him or not. I know that murder is wrong because God says so. Being made in his image, I also know this intuitively. This makes sense to me. My worldview is logically consistent.

  Atheists on the other hand, while reluctant to admit objective morality, do have it. Atheists are born with as much objective morality as the rest of us. That's not the question. The question is why should atheists believe in ANY objective morality? If all we are is a collection of chance chemicals and dna copying mistakes, then how can I be sure that any objective morality exists? Atheist morality is inconsistant and self emplodes.
  
  

  Animals kill each other all the time, even eating their own young as primates have been observed doing. No big deal, they are animals. Animals do what animals do. Chemicals fizz the way they fizz. Why should one chemical care how another chemical fizzes?

  When atheists argue that they don't need the bible to determine if murder or sexually abusing children is wrong, they are standing on Christian ground. They have to morally borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. They have to use a Christian presupposition (being made in the image of God) in order to argure against Christianity. Interesting isn't it?
• 

  cofty

  Interesting isn't it?

  No it's actually very muddled.

  Will try to find time this evening to describe my understanding of the difference between objective and absolute morality.