Posts by AnnOMaly

82

Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes

by Designer Stubble in

[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.

but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].

end-of-quote in awake.

AnnOMaly

Rama Singh, professor of biology at Canada’s McMaster University, says: “The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.”[/quote]

end-of-quote in Awake

Actual Rama quote however continues:

[quote]...who may not be logically opposed to evolution nevertheless do not accept it. This is because the process of and the evidence for evolution are invisible to a nonspecialist, or the theory may look too simple to explain complex traits to some, or because people compare evolution against God and find evolutionary explanations threatening to their beliefs. Considering how evolution affects our lives, including health and the environment to give just two examples, a basic course in evolution should become a required component of all our college and university educational systems.[/quote]

sir82 gave a link to the article. In this article the two quotes do not join up (Pistoff gives the full sentence). DS, were you using a different source to sir82's?

82

Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes

by Designer Stubble in

[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.

but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].

end-of-quote in awake.

AnnOMaly

Interested in response.

35

JAN 2015 Awake - Yet More Fallacies and Disingenuous Statements re Evolution/Creation

by konceptual99 in

so the new awake is up.. first question..... "how did life begin?.

how would you complete the following sentance?.

life is the result of..... a. evolution.

AnnOMaly

Awake! question:

"Why is it that even some scientifically-minded people have trouble accepting evolution as the origin of life?"

Not a good start.

I shall read the rest of the thread now.

48

Service meeting video....what a non-event

by sir82 in

jw
friends

at our service meeting we saw the video of a jw explaining his beliefs about 1914.. it was.....well, "underwhelming" does not do it justice.

what is below "underwhelming"?

"boringly tepid"?.

AnnOMaly

sir82, the OP's 'how to make toast' conversation is Classic.

(Taking the opportunity for another shameless plug for my parodies HERE and HERE.)

33

Watchtower REMOVES "Trinity" Booklet---ONLINE! Video

by BlindersOff1 in

another great catch by "the snarky apologist" on youtube......................................................i'm looking for this pdf can anyone give me a link.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hihh1_uc9s4.

AnnOMaly

I keep hearing this about misquotes in it but I never see any evidence of that.

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/trinity.php

By saying that there are misquotes in it, are you saying that there is a trinity?

The Trinity doctrine is an explanation which tries to harmonize and make sense of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit biblically and philosophically, and still retain monotheism.

Or is the contention that the Watchtower writers were not being honest in their attack on a doctrine that is false.

Yes. That is the contention.

Those quotes don't mean anything anyway. A person over 1000 years ago said something. Is that supposed to mean anything?

The quotes help in tracing early Christians' ideas about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and how the Trinity doctrine evolved.

The only thing that means something is that God himself says it or if Jesus says it.

OK, but then you have to tie all the texts together to form a consistent whole. That is hard to do when you're faced with verses that apparently contradict each other or are ambiguous.

Then if someone was inspired by God to say it.

The others such as apostles, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John (except for Revelation) were not inspired. And those after them were

not inspired. What they said matters not.

It does matter if you are a Bible-believing Christian because the epistles and Revelation are understood to be inspired.

28

is the big show on 1914 at Service Meeting evidence of factions in the GB?

by Wasanelder Once in

sometimes the gb do end runs around each other, as when freddie franz didn't agree with the whole governing body concept and spoke against it at the gilead graduation.

could this video/demonstration at the service meeting tonight on why they believe in 1914 and how to explain it to others be an effort to bolster that belief because there is a challange coming against it by factions within?

i guess we can't really tell but i wouldn't put it past the boneheads running the society.

AnnOMaly

Could this video/demonstration at the Service meeting tonight on why they believe in 1914 and how to explain it to others be an effort to bolster that belief because there is a challange coming against it by factions within?

Sure. It happens periodically.

When there were murmurings about 1914 and chronology in the aftermath of Russell's death and the end of the war, Rutherford shouted down the dissenters, dug his heels in, and made adherence to Russell's chronological scheme a test of loyalty to the Society in a series of articles in 1922.

The 1960s saw many and more detailed articles about chronology. JWs like e.g. Max Hatton had corresponded with the Society and asked them lots of awkward questions they couldn't satisfactorily answer. (We need to remember also the 1975 thing was launched which focussed on the WT's 'Bible chronology' too.)

Carl Jonsson's findings rattled HQ in the late '70s and so the WT views were restated and 'defended' in 1981's Kingdom Come book.

Age of the internet, lots of discussion, criticisms, Furuli's nonsense and 100 long years since the Kingdom's alleged birth - all this exposure makes JWs look at and/or question WT chronology, especially now. The WT response? Do what it's done in the past. Put on its game face, thump the same tub, quash doubts and ensure the r&f unitedly toe the party line.

10

PART DEUX: AN ALTERNATIVE CONVERSATION WITH A NEIGHBOR - Watchtower, November 2014

by AnnOMaly in

the second contrived and unrealistic conversation that one of jehovahs witnesses imagined having with a neighbor in the november 2014 watchtower will not be reproduced here.

instead let us imagine the other witness named andre (sorry, i meant) cameron has returned to the home of the other man also named jon.. nebuchadnezzars dream a tortuous recapcameron: hi there, neighbor!.

jon: whoa!

AnnOMaly

A for this one too.

32

AN ALTERNATIVE CONVERSATION WITH A NEIGHBOR - Watchtower, October 2014

by AnnOMaly in

the contrived and unrealistic conversation that one of jehovahs witnesses imagined having with a neighbor in the october 2014 watchtower will not be reproduced here.

instead let us imagine another conversation another witness named andre (ahem, sorry) cameron has at the home of another man who is also named jon.keep searching for a suckercameron: jon, ive really enjoyed the regular discussions weve been having about the bible.

* the last time we spoke, you raised a question about gods kingdom.

AnnOMaly

The 'Conversation' is being reviewed in the Service Meeting this week so ...

55

Taking on Jehovah's Witnesses fake Child Safeguarding Policy in the UK

by Watchtower-Free in

found this on youtube.

this is louise goode .

shes also on facebook.

AnnOMaly

The link in your thread, besty, made a comment that I suspect may be applicable if the CC were to come down hard on the UK Org over its dealing with child abuse. Would the Org genuinely change its ways to better protect children? Hmm.

The Brethren are silently laughing at the Charities Commission. They aren't about to change their hard and fast rules- but they will bend rules temporarily and pay lip service through their PR gurus and Lawyers. They will wait till all the fuss dies down and they will continue to enjoy the benefits of being a registered charity and so-called religious organisation .

But t hey can never meet the broader stated expectation s of the CC and they never will. They don ' t intend to either. Theirs is the highest power in the land and they say so too.

55

Taking on Jehovah's Witnesses fake Child Safeguarding Policy in the UK

by Watchtower-Free in

found this on youtube.

this is louise goode .

shes also on facebook.

AnnOMaly

Robert, surely the Charity Commission can revoke the UK Org's charitable status if they repeatedly don't comply? That'll be scary enough for them (after all, it's all about the tax breaks, yes?).