Posts by Coded Logic

33

Christians Know Who God Is

by Loi_241 in

many of us christians have a good question for you to ask, “who is god?” there are more than six scriptures to share with you.

you know the bible itself a true message for all the people on earth.

the bible explains ‘in the beginning god created everything: heaven, earth, animals, people and everything.’ thus, you notice god created humans, adam and eve.

Coded Logic

keep in mind that sometimes its talking about the NATIONALITY, not the location.

I know of no records in antiquity where Tyre is referenced as a nationality. Rather, the people of Tyre's nationality was Phoenician. I have the feeling this is something that has been pulled out of thin air by Christian apologists (A.K.A. the most dishonest people on the planet).

But none the less we know the Bible passage IS referencing the city of Tyre because:

A.) It specifically differentiates between the city of Tyre and its "dependent towns" (Ezekiel 26:6,8)
B.) It specifically references Tyre as being on an Island (Ezekiel 26:15,18). If it were referencing a "nationality" this would not be the case as only one city (Tyre) was on an Island. Not all of Phoenicia.
C.) It calls Tyre the "city of the Sea" (Ezekiel 26:17).

.

Also, even if we grant your premise that it was referencing a "nationality", it STILL gets it wrong. Because the people who lived in Tyre weren't destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar and their inhabitants are still there to this day.

So in this case the nationality of Tyre would be families of Edomites which did see an invansion from him.

This is even worse. It's not only not right - it's not even wrong. Just because someone CAN come up with an explanation doesn't meant that actually IS the explanation. You have to have something you can point to that allows us to reach a conclusion. You don't just get to say "well it could have been this so we'll go with that."

It's blatantly clear that when the Bible references the city of Tyre - it's referencing the CITY of Tyre. And it specifically says that Nebuchadnezzar would breach the city walls and that he would tear down the buildings and that the city would be so thoroughly destroyed that it would never be rebuilt or found again.

Instead of following the evidence where it leads (the Bible got this wrong) they instead try to move the goal post by saying "oh the Bible wasn't really talking about the city of Tyre."

Why can't Christians just be honest?

33

Christians Know Who God Is

by Loi_241 in

many of us christians have a good question for you to ask, “who is god?” there are more than six scriptures to share with you.

you know the bible itself a true message for all the people on earth.

the bible explains ‘in the beginning god created everything: heaven, earth, animals, people and everything.’ thus, you notice god created humans, adam and eve.

Coded Logic

You know the Bible itself a true message for all the people on earth.

Then why does it make demonstrably false claims? For example, we know for a fact that:

Humanity did not begin 6,000 years ago.
A worldwide flood did not happen 4,300 years ago.
Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed or even entered the city of Tyre.
Land animals existed BEFORE flying creatures.
etc.

.

The Bible get's all these facts completely wrong. Why should we think it has a "true" message?

4

Multi-culturalism

by Coded Logic in

for many of us liberals the concept of multi-culturalism is a fundamental underpinning to the progress we've made towards building the sorts of societies we want to live in.

unfortunately, it seems to be the case that many regressives have hijacked the word "multi-culturalism" and now fly the term under the banner of "all cultures are equal".. however, this could not be further from the truth.

that's not what we're talking about when we use the term.

Coded Logic

I think that history has shown us time and time again that the best way to defeat bad ideas is with good ideas. That it is far more effective to educate than it is to legislate.

Make no mistake, we have our work cut out for us. The simple idea that freedom of religion is not freedom to trespass on other people's rights - seems, at times, to be a foreign idea here in the US. Which is an indication we haven't been effective in communicating this basic fact.

But we are making progress. Slow progress. But progress none the less. We are dragging Christianity, kicking and screaming, onto a higher moral plane. Women's equality, women's health, LGBT rights, informed marriages (living "out of wedlock" first), etc. These have all been proven to be healthy for our society.

I don't know if there's been a study on it, but it seems that Christianity in the US is also becoming a lot less tribalistic. It was a huge deal in the 60s that Kennedy was a Catholic. But last election next to nobody cared that Romney was a Mormon. And now this election it hasn't even been brought up that Bernie is a Jew.

All that aside, I think one of the best possible things we could do is to start phasing out religions tax exempt status. If their doing charity work - then they can show proof of that just like everyone else and qualify that way. I think it would encourage a lot of religions to be more generous. And the ones like the Society who aren't - it would further expose their true colors.

15

How Corrupt Is WT?

by thedepressedsoul in

how corrupt do you think they are?

if so, in what ways?

i've been compiling my own list and thoughts.

Coded Logic

To believe that you are guardians of God's organization is to take the rails off any kind of introspective or critical thinking. Starting from that premise, there is nothing they can't justify. There is no act that is so repugnant it can't be masked under the scent of "it's what God wants."

I suspect the Governing Body sleeps very well at night arrogantly secure in their belief that they're doing God's work. All their doubts swept under the rug of cognitive dissonance by "we don't always understand God's plan but things will work out in the end."

They wear their lack of education and formal training as a badge of honor. Like Moses, they believe they are chosen because of their hearts. All they care about is that they are sincere in their beliefs and actions. And any consequences of their actions - to them - are almost inconsequential.

Their corruption isn't that they know what they're doing is wrong. Rather, it's the terrifying belief that they can do no wrong.

4

Multi-culturalism

by Coded Logic in

for many of us liberals the concept of multi-culturalism is a fundamental underpinning to the progress we've made towards building the sorts of societies we want to live in.

unfortunately, it seems to be the case that many regressives have hijacked the word "multi-culturalism" and now fly the term under the banner of "all cultures are equal".. however, this could not be further from the truth.

that's not what we're talking about when we use the term.

Coded Logic

FMF,

Well said! I think we can respect people's heritage while simultaneously looking to the future. When neighborhoods or whole boroughs become too vulcanized it can create a lot of problems. But when there's some level of integration and union between different cultures these sorts of communities really thrive.

I think we're all at our best when there's a free exchange of ideas and sharing of cultures. And we're at our worst when we turn a blind eye towards cultures that oppress women, deny religious freedoms, persecute homosexuals, and stifle free speech.

4

Multi-culturalism

by Coded Logic in

for many of us liberals the concept of multi-culturalism is a fundamental underpinning to the progress we've made towards building the sorts of societies we want to live in.

unfortunately, it seems to be the case that many regressives have hijacked the word "multi-culturalism" and now fly the term under the banner of "all cultures are equal".. however, this could not be further from the truth.

that's not what we're talking about when we use the term.

Coded Logic

For many of us liberals the concept of multi-culturalism is a fundamental underpinning to the progress we've made towards building the sorts of societies we want to live in. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that many regressives have hijacked the word "multi-culturalism" and now fly the term under the banner of "all cultures are equal".

However, this could not be further from the truth. That's not what we're talking about when we use the term. Rather, multi-culturalism means equal consideration. It means that anyone can make an argument for why their culture or belief or practice is valuable and what positive aspects it can bring to our societies. As progressive liberals, we are actively seeking to build a culture of cultures. We are cherry picking the very best ideas and refining them with each new generation.

To have a multi-culture is to scrutinize ideas. Subject them to interrogation and test the effects they have on people. It is NOT a free for all. It is not a "anything goes" mentality. It is not a free pass for bad behavior under the banner of "well that's my culture".

Every culture is proud. And many cultures are ancient. But being proud and being ancient says nothing about the value of a culture. If a culture doesn't value the well being of sentient creatures - if it doesn't value human dignity or doesn't seek to help us build a better world - then it's not a culture worth keeping.

I should also add that "Western Culture" is not any one thing either. It is an amalgamation of thousands of years of gathering and hellenizing other cultures. And it is a continued march forward towards new ideas, new ways of thinking and new methods for building more stable and healthier societies. It is the complete opposite of the stagnation in which many other cultures wallow.

"Western Culture" isn't better because it's ours. It's better because it's subject to revision and continual refinement. It recognizes that it is far from perfect and seeks to better itself. But such claims cannot be made about other non multi-cultures who presumptuously claim their way of living is the very best way. Who view change and modernity as enemies to a life well lived.

I believe there is a lot we can learn from other cultures. But it is a complete farce when the regressives claim that "all cultures are equal".

8

Star Trek: TSG - Careful what you watch

by Coded Logic in

dear brothers and sisters,.

it has come to our attention that many of you enjoy watching star trek.

while there is nothing wrong with a modest amount of entertainment in our lives we need to make sure the shows we are bringing into our households meet god's standards.

Coded Logic

stuckinarut2, hahaha, yeah I guess I really didn't go far enough. They probably would see all of them as the same generation!

8

Star Trek: TSG - Careful what you watch

by Coded Logic in

dear brothers and sisters,.

it has come to our attention that many of you enjoy watching star trek.

while there is nothing wrong with a modest amount of entertainment in our lives we need to make sure the shows we are bringing into our households meet god's standards.

Coded Logic

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It has come to our attention that many of you enjoy watching Star Trek. While there is nothing wrong with a modest amount of entertainment in our lives we need to make sure the shows we are bringing into our households meet God's standards. Much of the content that has been created for the Star Trek universe is, of course, a conscious matter. However, we caution you Brothers and Sisters that the show Star Trek: The Next Generation is not suitable viewing material for faithful witnesses as it directly contradicts the promise Jesus gave us in Matthew 24.

Jesus said that "this generation will by no means pass away" before the time of the end. However, the writers of Star Trek TNG have shown a blatant disregard for this promise. For example, both Dr. McCoy and Commander Spock lived until the time of the crew of the Enterprise D was formed.

Also, Captain Kirk survived into the twenty-fourth century via the Nexus and Engineer Scott was also able to make it by jury-rigging a transporter to maintain his pattern buffer until he was rescued.

Clearly, this show is not Star Trek: The Next Generation - because the "generations" overlap. Rather, this show should have been titled Star Trek: The Same Generation. As Jehovah's loyal followers, we should want to stay away from some such debase and worldly thinking that undermines Jesus generational promise. Let us remain faithful by removing this show from our Netflix ques and throwing out the seriously overpriced (yet amazingly remastered) Blu-Rays we bought.

Sincerely,

The Governing Borg

20

A Sincere Question Regarding Macroevolution

by jacobm in

jw
friends

i have a sincere question related to macroevolution:.

microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.

despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:.

Coded Logic

Was just looking at that JM. Probably because the page is written by a librarian and not a proper academic. The only scientific paper I can find that uses the term "macro-evolution" is this one:

https://bfg.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/5/430.full

But as it was originally written in German the word is more likely an issue of translation than actual scientific usage.

None the less, I don't care about the "properness" of a word. What I care about is what you mean when you use the word - which is why the very first thing I asked you was "what would you consider to be "macroevolution" and what would you consider as being a "jump" or "transcendent"?"

If you have a definition you find useful please provide it and I will do my best to answer your question :)

20

A Sincere Question Regarding Macroevolution

by jacobm in

jw
friends

i have a sincere question related to macroevolution:.

microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.

despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:.

Coded Logic

Have scientists ever been able to recreate or virtually witness a Macroevolution type jump that "transcends the boundaries of a single species"?

I guess the first question we should ask is what would you consider to be "macroevolution" and what would you consider as being a "jump" or "transcendent"?

If you're having a hard time with the question it's probably because things like "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are not scientific terms. They're not even defined at all. It's a bit like a creationist who asserts that animals can't be bred into a different "kinds". They're just hiding behind vague language so that no matter what evidence is provided they can always move the goal post further out.

However, "species" is a scientific term. It's any set of animals that are capable of producing viable offspring together. And "sub-species" is a group of animals that can mate but who do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors.

For example, lions and tigers shared a common ancestor about two million years ago. But, due to geographic isolation (separation of Africa from Asia), the two populations were no longer able to breed and evolution went two separate directions. While they're different species their genetics are still very similar and they can be bred to produce Ligers - but those offspring are sterile. In a few more eons of genetic mutation and natural selection (aka evolution) the two populations wont be able to breed at all. All species are transient. There's no "final" form.

So the question is, at what point would you consider it "macro-evolution"? How different do lions and tigers have to be for us to consider it a "jump"?

I'll give you a good analogy for this. Both Italy and France have Latin speaking populations. But due to geographic and national separation the two populations started speaking differently. Over hundreds and hundreds of years, we ended up with the French and Italian languages. Both are Latin based - but are very different. So when did a Latin speaking mother give birth to a French speaking child?

We all know this is an absurd question. It was the entire accumulation of changes in words that made French a different language than Latin. There wasn't any single event or generation in which it happened. The same is true of evolution. And why the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are meaningless.

If you want to learn more on this I suggest you do a little research on Allele Frequencies. Here's a great starter video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhFKPaRnTdQ

Hope this is helpful :)