Posts by AlanF

44

Question: Why was it ok to sell unbled meat to a foriegner for them to eat?

by Lady Liberty in

hello all... ok, i have a question for any takers: deuteronomy 14:21 says this:.

21 "you must not eat any body [already] dead.

so, it is obvious that this is why they could not eat a animal that they found that had died, say from natural causes.

AlanF

A very good topic, Lady Liberty!

Obviously, if God permitted Jews to sell an unbled carcass to non-Jews for consumption, then he was giving explicit permission for non-Jews to eat unbled meat. Therefore, if God is consistent, then his words in Genesis 9 about not eating "flesh with its soul -- its blood" cannot apply to animals found already dead. Therefore the prohibition in Genesis 9, supposedly to all mankind, can only apply to animals specifically killed for food, and the reason is simply to respect the giver of life when one takes an animal's life for food. That's really all there is to it.

The Watchtower Society, though, cannot accept this obvious fact, because of its tradition since about 1945 that blood transfusions are wrong based on Genesis 9. Its leaders know perfectly well that abandoning this ridiculous doctrine would not only lose them a lot of followers, but a lot of money in the form of contributions and, especially, lawsuits. They would also have to admit gross bloodguilt. If they admitted this, then of course the entire "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine would collapse.

Watchtower leaders are well aware of the scriptural problem, but cowards as they are, they won't discuss the issue in print. However, several years ago, shortly after I learned about this argument based on Deuteronomy 14:21, I called one Fred Rusk, who for many years has been one of the key WTS officials responsible for doctrine on blood. After I explained the issue (he was already familiar with it) he admitted that God indeed gave permission for non-Jews to eat blood, but that he did so only because of their "hard heartedness". He claimed that it's a situation similar to the way Jesus said that God had permitted Jews to divorce their wives because of their hard heartedness. Well of course this is pure special pleading, and there is not a shred of evidence to support Rusk's claim. The only reason for such a claim -- and this is the special pleading -- is that it's needed to get around the obvious logic as I explained above. And of course, JWs who hear an explanation like Rusk's from the Society will automatically accept it since it's coming from "the slave", who speaks for God. Obviously, with this kind of "reasoning" JWs can justify anything they like -- and they do! So this is yet another example of the house of cards doctrines that are the foundation of JW belief. In order to keep their belief in WTS leaders as God's spokesmen, the lot of them are forced to be intellectually dishonest.

AlanF

47

Intelligent Design Clobbered Again

by AlanF in

jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.

several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.

the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.

AlanF

Hooberus is a young-earth creationist, and Michel Behe admits that evolution has occurred, except that it's directed by God. So there's a huge gulf between YECs and folks like Behe.

AlanF

47

Intelligent Design Clobbered Again

by AlanF in

jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.

several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.

the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.

AlanF

EvilGambler: Here's a link to info about a brand new book . . .

DunceCap: Why are you talking about old stuff that I don't understand?

AlanF

47

Intelligent Design Clobbered Again

by AlanF in

jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.

several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.

the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.

AlanF

RunningMan said:

: This board is a fantastic place when it sticks to JW based issues. There's no place better for it. But, when it gets into fundamentalism or politics, then things tend to get really dumb. Richard Dawkins discussion board is a great place to get a breath of fresh air.

Which is precisely why I phrased my post as I did, and provided appropriate links. The JWs are most certainly gradually migrating toward IDist beliefs, and have been doing so by fits and starts ever since the WTS abandoned "flood geology" along with other young-earth creationist notions in the early 1980s.Understanding what the WTS is doing is good for ex-JWs, no?

AlanF

47

Intelligent Design Clobbered Again

by AlanF in

jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.

several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.

the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.

AlanF

I'm sure that's me, RunningMan.

AlanF

47

Intelligent Design Clobbered Again

by AlanF in

jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.

several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.

the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.

AlanF

Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years. Several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, which book has become a kind of bible for IDers. The book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution. Behe's claims have been thoroughly refuted in the scientific literature, and of course, Behe never even attempted to get a peer-reviewed article published. Hence, his resorting to the popular press.

Behe's latest book, just published, is called The Edge of Evolution. In it Behe attempts to argue that mutations really do nothing for evolution by natural selection -- a real surprise to scientists. One scientist, Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, wrote a short but sweet refutation of Behe's latest claims in The New Republic. Here is a link: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic . I had bought Behe's book a few days ago and got through the first three chapters. I'm not a biologist and have not the background to engage in any refutation like Coyne's, but I smelled something real fishy, and Coyne clearly pointed out why.

Coyne wrote a general refutation of intelligent design: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1058,The-Case-Against-Intelligent-Design-The-Faith-That-Dare-Not-Speak-Its-Name,Jerry-Coyne-edgeorg

AlanF

10

Are Only Supermodels Used In The Watchtower and Awake?

by mtsgrad in

jw
friends

hi friends,.

since jehovah judges the heart why are only attractive people used in the literature?.

uggo's are allowed to reply.. mtsgrad.

AlanF

Simple: the artists like to indulge their fantasies by looking at and drawing beautiful women.

AlanF

18

Spanking. Useful Deterrent Or Child Abuse?

by Paralipomenon in

passionate topic.

if you have kids, when/ever is it okay to use a spanking as punishment?

did your parents spank you growing up?

AlanF

: Alan~ you are SOO bad..

I know.

AlanF

121

Does God REALLY exist? (An Attempt at an Online Bible Study)

by theMartian in

with the global village now teaching evolution as an absolute fact, and the 'creation museum' making a mockery of the bible, any bible study should begin with this question!

however, the biggest hinderence to learning truth is clinging to concepts we've accepted as 'truth' without being willing to take a closer look at other possibilities.. i ask that ridiculers have fun on other postings, so that it might be possible to enjoy comparing what we have learned, how we see things- and also share what we have found to be facts-truth!.

(and i will not "count the time", as promised; that's unimportant to me, anyhow!).

AlanF

timetochange wrote:

: My guess would be that you have probably asked these questions scores of times or more to different people and of course have received responses that did not satisfy you or were in your opinion so off the wall that they only served to confirm what you are already fully convinced of.

Correct.

: May I ask, if for some unimaginable reason the God of the Bible (as you call him) were to in some way cause you to know of his existence would you come here and let us know? Would it be possible for you to do so? Yes, I think you would. I know you would because you are a man of integrity.

I certainly would. However, before I did that, I would have a great many questions and issues for him to deal with. I've already mentioned a few in this thread. Another is rather more personal: Why, in past times when I prayed fervently, did I receive no evident answer? As the comedian Don Rickles used to say: What am I? Chopped liver?

: The answers to the questions you asked are there

Where?

: the problem is that fundamentalists and literalists have poisoned the water to such an extent that reason is no longer an option rather confrontation and a desire to scream out foul and injustice are the call of the day. And rightly so!!

Do you really think that I and others of similar mind are so stupid as not to be able to filter out fundamentalist poison and get to the meat of these issues? These issues go far beyond what your typical narrow minded, ignorant fundamentalist is concerned with. These issues get to the heart of religiosity itself, whether the fundamentalist kind or kinds that are less strident. The point is not the stridency -- it's the fundamental claim: there is a God who exists and is worthy of worship because of blah blah blah. From fundamentalism to the most wishy washy of Christian belief systems, the basic idea is this fundamental claim. And that is what I take issue with, on both a factual evidentiary basis and a philosophical basis.

Unfortunately, as you've surmised, I've posed questions similar to those in this thread plenty of times, always with the same result: non-answers and excuses. If that's the best that God-apologists can muster, then I must say that I'm glad I'm not God -- I'd be highly embarassed.

AlanF

18

Spanking. Useful Deterrent Or Child Abuse?

by Paralipomenon in

passionate topic.

if you have kids, when/ever is it okay to use a spanking as punishment?

did your parents spank you growing up?

AlanF

Spanking children is fun and therapeutic. Everyone should do it.

Spanking adults is just fun. Everyone should do it.

AlanF