AlanF

Joined

• started 104 topics
• posted 4,636 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AlanF

• 
  36

  meditation: your thoughts? :)

  by DeusMauzzim in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wtbts always has meditation as a topic on conventions.

  they always state that eastern meditation makes the mind "blank", so this is a no no.. of course we know that it is actually the convention that makes the mind blank :).

  so what are your thoughts on meditation now?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I'll have to think about it for awhile.

  AlanF
• 
  34

  How to get out?

  by HelpMe1 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  okay, i'm not really sure where to start here, and i apologize in advance if this is all over the place.. i basically have come here for your help and advice.

  my husband and i got married may of this year, so it has only been 2 months!

  he was raised a jw (only by his mother, his dad has never been in the "truth").

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  If he's never been baptized, you're almost home free. Best to let sleeping dogs lie as far as your telling him negative things about the JW cult. The longer he's away from regular meeting attendance, the more he'll find out what normal life is like, and so when the inevitable confrontation with his mom (or other relatives) comes, it'll be easier for both of you to handle. In the meantime, by all means stay on this board and learn whatever you can about the JW cult and how to help people get out of it. Keep things low key, easy and take it slow.

  AlanF
• 
  66

  So non-creationist - what do you think of those who still accept creation?

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  no firestorms please.

  but be honest.

  do you think that we are of a lower level of intelligence than those who accept evolutionist' theories?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  You raise a multi-faceted question, AK-Jeff, since there are all manner of beliefs in creationism.

  I have no respect whatsoever for young-earth creationists, since they display the same disregard for facts and rationalism as do the JWs and other fundamentalists.

  I have some respect for certain varieties of old-earth creationists, but they must display respect for solid science and display rationality when discussing their beliefs.

  So far as I'm concerned, there is a fundamental problem with belief in a creator: there is no direct evidence for a creator, and all of the indirect evidence boils down to what is often called "the argument from personal incredulity". While there is a great deal still to be learned about evolution, belief in creation amounts to belief in a "God of the gaps", where the gaps are continually shrinking.

  Let me give an example. Thirty years ago, creationists pooh-poohed the idea that the ancient birdlike creature called archaeopteryx was proof that dinosaurs and birds were genetically related. "Archaeopteryx had feathers and so was clearly a bird!" they would holler. The JW Creation book, for example, showed a picture of a sauropod next to a bird and asked, "Could birds really be related to dinosaurs?" (this notion was borrowed from publications of the Institute for Creation Research.) But in the intervening years, more and more fossils of certain theropod dinosaurs -- a large group of which T-Rex is a part -- have been uncovered which display skeletal features so close to archaeopteryx that it takes a specialist to distinguish one from another. And more and more ancient birds have been found that close the gap from the other end. Furthermore, in the last ten years, a number of Chinese theropod fossils have been found that show that these creatures actually were covered by a form of feathers. So in view of the fossil evidence, it's no stretch to claim that this continuous array of fossils, from theropod to bird, is strong evidence for evolution. The necessity of a God to fill in the gaps is shrinking. On the other hand, this same evidence strongly suggests that no such God had a hand in creating all these forms. What would be the point of creating in such a way that creation is indistinguishable from evolution?

  There are other examples, such as the evolution of whales from landgoing predecessors, where the gaps are always shrinking. Along these lines, I think it's extremely telling that all of the fossil finds are completely in line with an evolutionary progression, while not a single properly verified fossil is inconsistent with it. You don't find rabbits in precambrian strata.

  AlanF
• 
  27

  "Carnivores were designed to eat plants!"

  by Anony-Mouse in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so said one of my family members recently.

  i'm pretty sure that if a lion eats grass, it will get sick.

  and if lions were designed to eat grass, why do they have teeth perfect for eating meat?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Interesting experience, HS! It shows that WTS writers are nothing if not consistently and stupidly doctrinaire.

  AlanF
• 
  20

  DESIGN WITHOUT A DESIGNER??? tsk-tsk.

  by karvel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hot on the heels of behe's latest comes the aug,15 wt: what does design in nature reveal?

  they even used a nautilus for their cover.

  yikes.. cover:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  This is just business as usual. The Society has always borrowed its ideas on creation versus evolution from other creationists. The September 2006 Awake! was dedicated to this topic, and said borrowed all of its ideas from Behe and his ilk, but added the usual Watchtower twists. I'm sure this latest Watchtower will do the same.

  AlanF
• 
  27

  "Carnivores were designed to eat plants!"

  by Anony-Mouse in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so said one of my family members recently.

  i'm pretty sure that if a lion eats grass, it will get sick.

  and if lions were designed to eat grass, why do they have teeth perfect for eating meat?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I can just picture The Great Designer mulling over whether to put muscle or nerve toxins in a Fer de Lance to be better able to subdue fleeing bananas.

  The last time the Society tackled this issue, so far as I know, was in a late-1982 Awake! article series. The 'reasoning' went like this: "After man's fall the creation became chaotic, so it's no surprise that some animals fell to eating one another." This is of course completely stupid, and it appears that a lot of readers said this to the Society. At the time, Awake! usually included negative comments in the "Comments from Readers" section, and it was amusing to read such comments and the Society's lame responses. Not long after that, negative comments were rarely printed. Nor have I seen any discussions of the carnivore problem since. I suspect that a memo was sent to the Writing Staff, "Do not touch this issue!"

  AlanF
• 
  13

  Wearing a suit at the beach on a desert island

  by ozziepost in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just came back home from visiting some south pacific islands.

  you know how it is - balmy winds blew through the palm trees, soft white sandy beaches, azure seas.

  then there were the natives - men with faces painted, spears in hand reminding us that it was only a generation ago that they were cannibals.. and they wore.....well, not much!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  : " . . . the chief objected to the wearing of any clothing by either brothers or sisters while in the village. The brothers explained that it was not a Christian custom to go naked."

  Not a Christian custom? Where does the New Testament say anything about that? Didn't the apostle Paul say something about being all things to all men?

  This idiotic stance is nothing more than ossified old American men wanting to impose their cultural preferences, learned in childhood, on the world.

  AlanF
• 
  25

  A MORAL SOCIETY WITHOUT GOD OR RELIGION

  by fifi40 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  religion has taught that without a belief in god and in absolute standards there is no genuine moral conduct.

  but for many alive today who do not hold a belief in god, is a moral and good life possible?.

  not to be confused with sin, which is essentially a religous idea defined as disobedience to god, morality concerns itself with observed consequences, so a wrong act can be determined by the effect or harm it causes to others.. for example religion teaches that in the eyes of god homosexuality is wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  fifi40 said:

  : So is morality a human concept concerned with the principle of not harming others and consent?

  I believe morality is very much such a human concept.

  Even many of the most religious wince at stories like God telling Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice. They may try to justify such an obvious moral lapse by saying, "Whatever God does is moral", but the very fact that they wince proves they know such justifications are mere rationalizations, because if whatever God does is moral by definition, then morality is arbitrary. But evolution of human social consciousness has built in a sense of morality that is defined, as you say, by awareness that harming others is somehow bad.

  AlanF
• 
  42

  Perfection

  by purplesofa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was talking to a friend of mine about perfection last night.. he made a comment that there was no way to have perfection, unless you made one thing and set that as perfect.

  everything after that would be a copy and otherwise would always in some way fall short of perfect, the original creation.

  we were talking about art.. and then he made a comment that god did not create us perfectly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Like beauty, perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

  Even the Bible recognizes this. Jesus tells his followers that they must be perfect just as God is perfect. Obviously perfection is a relative concept.

  The Bible, by the way, never talks about human perfection. That notion is the invention of religionists like St. Augustine and Watchtower leaders.

  AlanF
• 
  116

  The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if you are looking for the simplest picture that shows how the wts calculates that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, and if you want to understand basic problems with their method, this might be what you want.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/wts_false_reasoning_for_607_bce.pdf.

  (make sure that your pdf reader displays the whole page.).

  doug.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus likes to pretend that Watchtower writers have produced an accurate chronology of the Hebrew kings based purely on the Bible. But that is a JW myth. The chronology of Hebrew kings listed in the Insight book is based fundamentally on speculation.

  The 607 BCE date for Jerusalem's destruction is based solidly on the speculation that the Jews returned in 537 BCE, and a lot of other speculations besides.

  The 997 BCE date for the beginning of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah is based on the speculative 607 date combined with further speculation that Ezekiel 4:1-8 describes prophetic events that began in 997 BCE and ended in 607 BCE, i.e., that the "390 years" that Ezekiel had to lie on one side began and ended then. What is this speculation based on? The writings of various Jews from about 160 CE through the 19th century.

  It's always interesting to do some research into Watchtower claims and find that what one always accepted as a matter of course as a JW is based on speculation and wishful thinking.

  AlanF