Posts by Love

24

Political Party Loyalty

by Greenpalmtreestillmine in

i am very new to the political process and this year will be the first time i enter a voting booth, but something has been on my mind of late and i hope you all can help me sort it out.. if george bush had been a democrat and from day one of his presidency had done everything exactly as he has done would most of the republicans be supporting the war in iraq?

would most of the democrats still be against the war?.

or would each party fall in line with most republicans against the war and most democrats for the war?.

Love_Truth

I vote for the best Republican or Democrat candidate. I am a right leaning moderate, so the majority of the time I vote Republican, but not always. It depends on the beliefs on the issues, and the record, of the candidate. A vote for a third party is a wasted vote and only plays into, in effect, voting for or against one of the two dominant parties. That's a fact. Sad, but true.

As for whether a Dem or Rep would make a huge difference, history says the answer is clearly yes.

One more point, and then, I'll have had my say:

Far too often, I see US citizens and foreigners criticizing the Administration's decisions, especially those involving war or national security issues. They clearly are ignoring the fact that they don't have the same facts the President and Chiefs of Staff have- those facts which must be kept secret due to national security.

It's like saying "informed of only half the data, what would you do?" And what do you think the likelihood of you making a better decision than the Administration is making, given the fact that you don't have the pertinent facts? Not vey much chance, is there?

That's why I laugh at the detractors and armchair politicos in such cases. I've had it up to my eyeballs with conspiracy theories and the like. It's mostly pure rubbish and uninformed conjecture.

That's my two cents.

Cheers,

Love_Truth

96

My Dad died a few hours ago

by BONEZZ in

jw
friends

excuse me if i ramble...this is hard.

i have even avoided threads in the past where others have had to go thru this because i didn't want to face it.

guess i'm a wuss.

Love_Truth

My condolences.

33

Coming Out With Pride & Confidence!

by Corvin in

jw
friends

i have only been visiting this board for a couple months, but wow, how it has helped me!

thanks to everyone who has shared information and their stories, given advice, listened, reasoned, confessed, vented, cussed, challenged and supported.

i am formerly known as "hunyadi", but i made the decision to come out a few weeks ago.

Love_Truth

Hey, Corvin,

That's great news! I have one daughter in, and one daughter who just came out of the JWs, so I've been through the same, and still await the day my yougest comes to her senses.

Thanks for sharing and glad to know ya!

Cheers,

Love_Truth.

23

The Memorial: Blasphemy or Monty Python Sketch?

by metatron in

soon the special night will be upon us, when millions of jehovah's witnesses.

will gather together for the sacred purpose of merely passing around the emblems.

of christian salvation and rejecting them.. this event proves to me that anything, no matter how silly, will be treated solemnly.

Love_Truth

Anybody here, going to eat the bread and drink the wine? I will, along with other xjw friends of mine, at my house, on the eve of April 4 this year. As Morpeus correctly pointed out: because Jesus said to partake right in Luke 22:19 & 20; Mark 14:22 & 23; and in particular Matthew 26:26-28 where Jesus was explicit in his commandment to followers: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.""

57

What One JW Belief Could You Never Totally Accept???

by minimus in

jw
friends

for me it was that god will destroy billions of innocent children simply because their parents weren't jehovah's witnesses.....and you??

?

Love_Truth

That it is fine for the GB to go beyond the things written. That covers a lot of goround, including their claim that they are the FDS, and that they are God's channel of communication, that they therefore have "the truth(tm)", etc, etc, etc....................

66

Please!! Who is there to teach me the ways of Christ Jesus?

by Celtic in

please!!!!!!!!!!!!

cos i'd really like to know more than anything else!!.

please.. please.. please..

Love_Truth

Celt,

I can't say much more than has already been said. You've already been told that you've got to read the Gospels. I'd add to that the rest of the New Testament. You'll find that the more you read and think about it as to how it applies to you and others, re-read and think about it as to how it applies to you and others, and repeat that process, the more Jesus' teachings will become alive in your heart, and the better you'll retain them in your mind. I'd definitely pray to God as well, asking Him to help you understand what you are reading, and to help you to do His will and please Him. Try to at least have some fath to start with, it will get stronger as you do the preceding and the years of doing so progress.

Here's what I consider the best aid currently available for doing so:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible/

It contains 17 versions of the Bible, footnotes, cross-references, concordances, commentaries and other research tools, and audio (so you don't have to read, you can listen instead), and much more. You can look up Scripture by passage, or by subject or phrase. It's a powerful tool for study and research. And it's free!

Now, a little off subject perhaps, but here's a web presentation, for inspiration, that might inspire you to get started:

http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Love_Truth

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Rem,

This is not even close to what I said. I said that you took the quote out of context by throwing out the part about Natural Selection's role. You, sir, are imagining things.

I shall get to natural selection, aka the circular argument, in a post to follow.

Except for the fact that Dobzhansky is not defining Evolution here, which you would know if you understood the context of the quotation in question. You clearly don't, so you continue to make yourself look like a fool. We have been discussing biological evolution all this time. You are introducing a red herring. notice Dobzhansky said the "concept" of evolution (small "e") - not the "Theory" of Evolution (big "E"). Therefore the quote has nothing to do with the biological theory you claim has holes. You are obviously confused.

He is defining evolution here. Look, we could go back and forth on semantics. Biological evolution, Cosmological evolution, abiogenesis, etc are all part and parcel of atheistic theories of evolution, to explain how things came to be as they are. This is the general sense which Dobzhansky, I, and others have used the term ?evolution?. That does not mean that those who believe evolution are necessarily atheists, many are theists, as I have mentioned previously. If evolution could be proven, it would simply explain how God created things. Again, I repeat myself. Just as you attempted to pigeonhole the meaning of ?faith?, you now attempt to pigeonhole the meaning of ?evolution.? The English word ?evolution? does not necessarily mean ?biological evolution?, as I?ve pointed out many times previously. So using the term ?evolution? does not imply a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology concepts on my part. I won?t be pigeonholed. This argument over semantics needs to stop.

As I have explained, however, I clearly do not believe in biological evolution or in abiogenesis (or analogous theories). So, the reason I am exposing evolutionary theories is that it raises the issue of design, which can only be explained by an intelligent being I call "God". One step at a time there, be patient. There are other reasons for taking the conversation this way at present, as well.

I've read your cut and paste treatement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and it is easy to show that your understanding is flawed. It is true that entropy increases over time, but there is no law that says that pockets of entropy can't decrease within the system - as long as the average entropy for the system as a whole increases. If you know of such a law, please post it with references. Also, you seem to have the mistaken notion that Thermodynamics cares about information and complexity. It doesn't. Information and the amount of complexity has no input into the mathematical calcualtions of Thermodynamics. Only energy is relevant. If your version of the Laws of the Universe were true, it would be impossible for a fetus to grow into an adult. But any 1st year undergrad student would know that, right?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html (A rebuttal, not a refutation) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html (Another rebuttal, not a refutation)

Again, having a different conclusion is ?flawed?, how? Tyranny of Authority again. I never said that entropy must remain continuous. Rather, it can be, and often is, like a sine wave of increasing amplitude, where entropy is represented by the amplitude. Again, you put words in my mouth, bad habit of yours. Your analogy of fetus to adult is a very bad one that just serves to illustrate it is you who misses the point. Design, intelligence, a blueprint?, such is found in DNA, accounts for how the zygote becomes fetus, becomes an infant. It is you who is confusing the 2 nd law of Thermodynamics with the argument of ordering vs complexity. Again, as so often is the case, you distort what I wrote.

You have failed to demonstrate that Biological Evolution, or any other type of evolution, such as evolving languages, breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Since the evolution of language is a fact, either your understanding of the 2nd Law is in error, or the 2nd Law is wrong. I'm betting on the former explanation.

Not so. As I stated previously, t he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems must become more disordered over time. But the 2 nd Law does not explain the other necessary requirements for the abiogenesis, or of biological evolution. Living cells could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multi-cellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. Why? Merely having an energy field available to an open system does not mean that the system will somehow automatically become organized or increase in complexity. Four conditions, not just one, must be met. The energy must be available (The Sun is available); the system is ?open?(it is); the energy conversion systems are present (Rem, Abbadon, etc, care to explain the presence of energy conversion systems in your theory?); and the specific program (blueprint) directs the ongoing construction. (There?s another one for you).

Now, can we agree to limit the arguments over semantics?

Cheers,

Love_Truth

P.S.- I'd add that I've spent considerable time on the talk origins website, and the others that drwtsn, abaddon, and you have posted. I am not ignoring those. I will post something here that may prevent another semantic discussion, from the talk origins website:

An Index to creationist claims. A collection of creationist claims which aims to be comprehensive. It includes brief rebuttals and, in many cases, pointers to more information. Note the proper use of the word "rebuttal", not "refutation". Please make a note of it. Thanks.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Rem, Your semantic arguments are revolting and a complete waste of time.

Your quotations are irrelevant out of context as I showed above with the Gould quote and as I shall do with the one below: You did not show I took either quote out of context. Read the line immediately following that quotation from Gould where I said essentially the same as you. I do not and will not state that an evolutionist, of course, believes in evolution. It's a moot point. Instead, I will point out what quotations are from creationists, as I have done. Or should I copy the whole friggin' book? . Dobzhansky is not using the word Evolution in the sense that we have been discussing the past few pages. He is using the word Evolution here as a non-technical term meaning change. Biological evolution, which is what we have been discussing, specifically deals with change over generations with heredity. Thus the quotation is irrelevant. You simply misunderstand the quotation because you don't understand Evolutionary theory. Of course he's not using it the same way you are, Captain Obvious! I know what Dobzhansky's credentials are, and I'll take his definition over yours any day. YOU want to limit the discussion to Biological Evolution for obvious reasons, I will not do so. " Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous ", indeed! I obviously did not misunderstand the quotation, and it is indeed relevant. As you should have recognized by now I understand that quite well. Remember that I stated that Evolution was nearly falsified back in Darwin's day because of inaccurate calculations by Physicists? Yes, indeed, ALL branches of science can fairly comment on the so-called "evidence" of the Religion of Evolution Theory, not just biology I already discussed the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you haven't read what I wrote yet. Or perhaps it's too much for you to comprehend. I can only come to the conclusion that you are having conversations inside your head if you think you've adequately refuted anything hooberus or I have stated. Simply delusional. Cheers, Love_Truth P.S.# 1- we can continue throwing stones over semantics forever, I'd prefer we get back to the discussion at hand. You are simply obscuring the discussion, as usual. P.S. # 2-
Hear, see how this hat fits- "you have absolutely no understanding of Biology or Scientific Laws or Principles". I said, it, therefore it must be true? Nope. If you don't stop using the same tired friggin' line with me, I'll have to start firing back using the same type of ignorant statements as you and Abaddon do.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Derek,

Easy. I have faith in God. Yes, you could use some sort of the same argument against God. However, what I will show, and have begun to show, is that all living things, all complex beings, even a single celled living creature, require(d) an intelligence, a designer, as well as the Physical Laws, and the universe itself. I call that designer "God".

I've only just begun, just getting warmed up so far.

Cheers,

Love_Truth

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Rem,

Not irrelevant. I am able to back up my position with facts and in-context quotations from reputable scientists (not just biologists) who specialize in the field in discussion. So far you have not done the same. It was Theodosius Dobzhansky, not I, who stated: ?Evolution comprises all the stages of development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life

Here's a hint: There are many scientific principles that weigh in on evolution, in the broad sense, not just biology. Yours is a common misconception among evolutionists. Genetics (yep, that's branch of biology, I know), Physics, Mathematics, and nearly every other science has fair and just cause to weigh in on evolution theory. I have already shown, and will elaborate much more fully, for instance, on the fact that abiogenisis (or whatever you call it) could not and did not happen. It is a Mathematical impossibillity. You are the one who clearly misunderstands the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Go back and re-read what I posted instead of distorting what I stated, as you usually do, and are doing now.

Go ahead and continue your hand waving. I expected as much. I have taken the time to painstakingly refute your arguments ( and have only just begun) while you distort what I have stated, and show a lack of understanding of scientific laws and principles that are necessary to the discussion. You are clearly fooling no one with your distortions and misunderstandings, other than perhaps yourself.

Cheers, Love_Truth

Love_Truth

Posts by Love_Truth