Posts by greatteacher

23

I don't think we should give up praying ever...

by Singing Man in

i tend to believe that god does hear prayers, he can ansure them in other planes of time that we don't understand and that we will be in latter in our life or possibly in some other dimension.

i do not think he gives us dead air space after we speak to him.

our request have far reaching implications for us beyond what can understand in our time line that we are living presently.

greatteacher

I think god gives us "dead air space."

51

God is dead.....and we have killed Him

by logansrun in

there are generally two types of arguments against theism whether we are talking about the judeo-christian-islamic god, the god of deism, the hindu pantheon....whatever.

the "rational" arguments include all scientific, logical and historical problems with a supreme and all-loving being and include such fields as evolutionary biology, deconstruction of "holy" texts, archaeology, formal logic, etc.

science in particular has been eliminating the "explanatory" aspect of theism for hundreds of years now -- from copernicus to newton to darwin to einstein -- all, knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly, have had a share in shattering faith.

greatteacher

Does anyone believe that god exists, but should be ignored?

To explain, let's say that the great majority of people COMPLETELY ignore god. Humans will most likely organize to survive and survive.

A question: Will a world ignorant of god be more "violent", "immoral", or "evil" than it is at present? (words in quotes because of the relativity of definition)

Also, people are not necessarily lazy and stupid, but it is essentially unnecessary for survival to understand how things work. If survival required the understanding of the complexity of a microwave, people would learn it.
For example, the Native Americans of the Great Plains understood the details concerning the migratory patterns of the buffalo because it meant surviving. In the early 21st century we don't need that information to survive, but if it meant our survival, we would learn it.
To say that people are becoming less interested in how things work is invalid.
To say that things are becoming more and more complex is only partially true. Yes, the technology is complex, but survival is actually simpler in many ways. Accessing food, clothing, and shelter is easy. We don't have to hunt and skin animals and use every part of the animal to survive. We don't have to make our own clothing or build our own residence. So, eventhough the technology of things is more complex, the necessity of understanding those things is virtually meaningless.

By the way, I feel that the majority of people are lazy and stupid. Like the people who explain things by saying god did it or because the bible says it.

21

Evidence of 'jesus' ... scientist claims it is fake

by Simon in

interesting story.

personally, the lack of evidence for someone supposedly so important is a bit pathetic.. i remember a wts that said "there is more evidence that jesus lived than julius ceasar died in rome".

notice the twist - of course there is plenty of evidence that julius ceasar lived, and lots of writings that he died in rome.

greatteacher

Euphemism,
Your implication that Josephus' writings are not forged is correct (thanks for the many references you provided) and jesus did exist. And your response to the other 20 or so writers of that time period was convincing. Jesus did exist.

Bebu, Thanks for your opinion!

21

Evidence of 'jesus' ... scientist claims it is fake

by Simon in

interesting story.

personally, the lack of evidence for someone supposedly so important is a bit pathetic.. i remember a wts that said "there is more evidence that jesus lived than julius ceasar died in rome".

notice the twist - of course there is plenty of evidence that julius ceasar lived, and lots of writings that he died in rome.

greatteacher

Here is an interesting list from atheist.org.

They Should Have Noticed

John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:
Josephus, Philo-Judæus, Seneca, Pliny Elder, Arrian
Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Suetonius,Juvenal
Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Pliny Younger,Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Quintilian, Lucanus
Epictetus, Hermogones Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy
Appian, Phlegon, Phædrus, Valerius Maximus, Lucian
Pausanias, Florus Lucius, Quintius Curtius, Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom, Columella, Valerius Flaccus, Damis
Favorinus, Lysias, Pomponius Mela, Appion of Alexandria, and
Theon of Smyrna
According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

44

Only Two Religions

by barry in

i know i may get shot down in flames for this but here goes anyway.

im quoting fron dr des fords site http://www.desford.org.au/home/index.php/mission.

there are and always have been only two religions in the world.

greatteacher

Hey, you're going straight to hell after that bit of sarcasm!

32

Getting drunk a sin?

by Coop Man in

i have a pretty interesting perspective on this.....especially since i once had all of my privledges removed because i had admitted to an elder that i was hungover..... the scriptures state that drunkards will not inherit gods' kingdom, nor will gluttons.... gluttony is the practice of over-eating, much the same is being a drunkard is one who is continuously drunk.

so, in my feeble mind, getting drunk "once-in-a-while" is not a sin, just the same as overeating at mcdonalds or at grandma's house is not a sin.. am i incorrect in my reasoning?.

thanks to all participants.

greatteacher

Getting drunk is definitely not a sin, and neither is smoking marijuana. But, as stated, if you over-indulge everyday all the time, than it's extremely bad for your health. I used to be a pot head and although it's not as bad as getting drunk everyday, it's not good for you. As a personal experience, the elders brought me in the back room twice for smoking pot (which I admitted to doing) and both times because of congregation politics, they let me off without any punishment at all.

44

Only Two Religions

by barry in

i know i may get shot down in flames for this but here goes anyway.

im quoting fron dr des fords site http://www.desford.org.au/home/index.php/mission.

there are and always have been only two religions in the world.

greatteacher

Eugene, I'm back to work and at my computer! Again, just to emphasize and conclude this debate, you are constantly leaving science and entering belief and again I stress the use of the scientific method in understanding and applying the difference of the two. I attempted to make statements that are scientific whereas you kept referring to the bible and one scientific theory with your belief inserted to make the belief sound scientific. Above all you avoided answering three important points. 1. Obviously you understand the connotation of the word theory when used in science. Well, I asked you to tell me what scientific theories you don't view as scientific truth, and you never answered me. The example I used was evolution, a theory that is scientifically "true", but certainly contradicts the god of the bible and it seems that that is the god you BELIEVE in. 2. You continually made statements that sound or read like facts, but are clearly not factual, but your opinion. Here are some examples: a. Did you know that quantum theory validates the biblical view of physics? b. all respected physicists today agree...that god exists. c. the only insight i'm adding to the debate is based on an obvious interpretation of biblical revelation. d. the point is quantum theory refutes determinism and vindicates the clear revelation of scripture. All of these statements are opinion, but you state them with such authority that gullible people will believe you, that sounds like an organization I know of. 3. Finally, you quoted Stephen Hawkin out of context with his statement, "the big bang smacks of divine intervention." This reminds me of when the WTBTS quoted Noam Chomsky in the creator book. In other words you used a tiny quote from a professor to support your beliefs, but the quote is taken from a professor who, based on his writings, would disagree with you. I consider this discussion over because you're like the DUBs in that you will not leave the realm of personal opinion and belief to debate. And by the way when you insert god into quantum physics you are making what scientists call a leap of faith. Also, one final important question is this: even if all your opinions of physics are true how do you explain the personal god of the bible?

44

Only Two Religions

by barry in

i know i may get shot down in flames for this but here goes anyway.

im quoting fron dr des fords site http://www.desford.org.au/home/index.php/mission.

there are and always have been only two religions in the world.

greatteacher

Eugene, Quantum machanics can exist with or without god, but does not have any need for god, but i suppose if you want to add god to it you can because as you stated we don't know, but as soon as you add god to it you leave the realm of science and enter belief. The burden of proof is on the believers, simple biology places it on them. It doesn't matter how much you distort physics and scripture, you are continually entering the realm of belief. I have to go now, we'll talk tomorrow.

25

Did a 'major-event' cause you to join/leave JW?s?

by cyberguy in

it seems to me, many people become jw?s after a major event in their lives.

perhaps it is the death of a loved-one, such as a father, mother, child, wife, or husband.

on the other hand, it?s also my observation that a "major-event" often causes an active jw to rethink what they are doing with their life, whether they are really in the "truth," as jw?s call it.

greatteacher

No, I was just kidding, a bad joke, nothing more. :-)

44

Only Two Religions

by barry in

i know i may get shot down in flames for this but here goes anyway.

im quoting fron dr des fords site http://www.desford.org.au/home/index.php/mission.

there are and always have been only two religions in the world.

greatteacher

Eugene, read this quote: "To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." Einstein Scientific knowledge still hasn't set foot in your "obvious interpretation of Biblical revelation." Also, Stephen Hawking argued that there is 'no place for a creator', that God does not exist. In his quantum cosmology "there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?" Again, you're juxtaposing scientific language with belief, again, argument invalid. By saying that "All respected physicists today agree that Einstein was being extremely closed-minded and, if using his philosophical language, overwhelmingly agree that God plays dice with light and matter", you're misleading people into thinking essentially that, "all respected physicists...overwhelmingly agree that god plays dice with light and matter" or that god exists. Your statement would have been correct if you stopped at the word minded. I realize the qualifier "philosophical language" is inserted, but that doesn't change the intended impression that your statement gives to others.