I understand in the bible mythology the devil can’t repent, I shouldn’t have used repent, but instead can the devil give-up, forfeit, runaway like a pouting general knowing he’s lost the war, or does the devil have no free will and has another self-fulfilling prophecy to care of .
Grouper
JoinedPosts by Grouper
-
26
The Devil couldn't have done a better job, assuming God inspired the Bible
by Spectrum inif you were a mean spirited, nasty supernatural being that wanted to reek havok on human civilisation how would you go about doing it?
inspire people to write several versions of a book, call it holy, then get people to slavishly follow the version that they prefer and die for it when they come in contact with a different version.
could a kind, all powerful, gracious god have ever inspired such a book.
-
-
-
17
What "Awoke" you from the Watchtower's grip?
by JH in.
in my case, i was very generous with those in need in the congregation, because i had a good job, but when i lost that good job, no one gave me a helping hand.
they just didn't care about my financial well being.. also the years went by and it was as if we were getting further and further away from what they previously prophetized.
-
-
Grouper
Being a transplant donor, obviously finding out one would be df’d for obtaining a transplant (Noah's hoax a close 2nd), but the real kicker for me was realizing that those I represented have the power to define what the bible says.
For example I preached with many PO’s and CO’s that the bible thought the generation we are living in was going to see the end of the system of things, and they used the bible to show how Jesus said this and then formulated the question of how long a generation was, and then eagerly answered that the bible also answered this in question, then went to psalms and show that a generation lasted 80 years or so.
But all this changed in 1995 and my mind was able to discern that if they can change not only the answer but the question, how then could I possibly believe this crap and let alone teach it as truth to others………………… if only I could say that what I believed was based on FAITH.
-
26
The Devil couldn't have done a better job, assuming God inspired the Bible
by Spectrum inif you were a mean spirited, nasty supernatural being that wanted to reek havok on human civilisation how would you go about doing it?
inspire people to write several versions of a book, call it holy, then get people to slavishly follow the version that they prefer and die for it when they come in contact with a different version.
could a kind, all powerful, gracious god have ever inspired such a book.
-
-
Grouper
I always thought why can't the devil change his ways, repent and throw a monkey wrench to gods prophecies since the devil is suppose to know quite a bit
-
24
Animals didn't sin so why do they kill each other?
by Spectrum inhow does a benevolent and loving god explain away his ecological system whose very persistence relies on the killing and suffering of animals that have fear and pain receptors and know when they are about to get it?
.
can the personilaty attributes religions have given this god be reconciled with his creation?
-
-
Grouper
I think these questions are extremely relevant to determine Gods character if one believes He directly created all living things without the use of evolution.
Just think of the thought process God must have had in determining how certain species breed and eat.
For example why not just simply create wasps that implant their eggs in dead animal matter or plant matter for them to develop, but no, instead God creates wasps that hunt their prey, paralyze it, implants an egg inside of it and lets it grow by eating its host from the inside out while it is still alive or in the case of certain flies they just find any good snail and implant their eggs in it, the larvae takes over all motor functions while it feeds on its host but mercifully this time the host doesn’t die but lives to be infected another day.
Now lets consider spiders that get their meals not just by simply killing its prey, but instead by paralyzing it, then once it is paralyzed, the venom liquefies the inside of its prey then the good old spider sucks the juicy inside with its fangs like a straw.
One more, what was God thinking when he made the Vampire catfish. The candiru feeds parasitically by burrowing into body orifices, jamming itself in place using barbs along its sides then drinking the blood of its victim. If it detects urine in the water while looking for a host, it can swim up the urethra and it is almost impossible to remove without surgery. OUCH.
God also created chemical warfare, as it is the coral reefs and other invertebrates that first went to war with one another by using their toxins to niche out their homes in crowed reefs and hunt for food.
There are millions of other examples that are gruesome, sadistic, and unimaginable on how animals eat, breed, and live that that if we credit God with having directly created them, it leaves one wondering about Gods character, unless you think He is sadistic or has a weird sense of humor. -
24
Animals didn't sin so why do they kill each other?
by Spectrum inhow does a benevolent and loving god explain away his ecological system whose very persistence relies on the killing and suffering of animals that have fear and pain receptors and know when they are about to get it?
.
can the personilaty attributes religions have given this god be reconciled with his creation?
-
-
Grouper
Here is another one.............
Adam & Eve eat from fruit = death (by changing DNA and starting a degenerating cell binary fission and mitosis)
Animals not doing anything different from what they have been doing = death (by changing DNA and starting a degenerating cell binary fission and mitosis)
WTF did the animals do to inherit disease and isn't amazing that many of the diseases they suffer from have a human counterpart.
Which leaves me to ask if the animals have a savior?
-
Climate of Fear
by Grouper inwhile in college in the early 90's professor richard lindzen, mit, was one of the first person i heard discuss global warming and his concerns about how politicians, in particular senator al gore, was manipulating global warming concerns to attain a political advancement.
he also outlined, back in the early 90's, how funding to universities got reduced or taken away from those who did not hold the same scientific opinion of global warming as senator gore and his cronies............. .
just thought i post since i saw this being discussed here recently .
-
Grouper
While in college in the early 90's professor Richard Lindzen, MIT, was one of the first person I heard discuss Global Warming and his concerns about how politicians, in particular Senator Al Gore, was manipulating global warming concerns to attain a political advancement. He also outlined, back in the early 90's, how funding to universities got reduced or taken away from those who did not hold the same scientific opinion of global warming as Senator Gore and his cronies.............
Just thought I post since I saw this being discussed here recently
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDTThere have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. -
35
To all Active JW's on the board
by UNCLEAR inas you are all aware i am new to the board, this is my third topic post.
since i have come online and expressed some concerns regarding docturnal issues, i have been pm'd by several active jw's on the board pretending to have concerns also but then sending pm's to "trust in the congregation and jevovah", "talk to the elders about your concerns" and "stick close to the congregation".
i would like to make this known loud and clear -
-
-
Grouper
UNCLEAR,
Sorry about what has happened to you, the issues you write about are of a very sensitive nature and are therefore to be treated that way. The divulgence of very personal information to a tribunal (elders) in my opinion is wrong and should be no ones business but you and the party involved.
The elder and ms friends I have known throughout my life have always share confidential info with others who don’t need to know about it, including myself. It is not that they are horrible people but it is human nature to want to divulge information with others.
If professionals such as law enforcement, doctors, and psychiatrist occasionally slip in divulging info and could jeopardize their careers, what is one to expect of brothers who for the most part have very little training in social sciences that would assist them in assisting troubled ones and keeping information confidential.
And besides the training headquarters gives these brothers is many times a joke, I’ll give some examples.
Speaking to an elder friend about DF’ing for porneia, he stated that recently (2years) HQ’s told them that masturbating with someone online through a live webcam is considered porneia and therefore grounds for df’ing, I don’t recall if grounds for divorce also applied if the individual is married. So then I asked him what about if the masturbation was done to an MPEG or other recorded performance, he said that was not porneia. What? DO you see the lunacy in this kind of reasoning?
Here is one more. If you go to a strip club and get a lap dance that would be considered porniea and therefore be grounds for df’ing but if you just touch the breast and maybe slap some ass you would most likely only be counseled. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Do some boners work on osmosis? Please someone tell me because if that is the case I’m missing out.
I believe elders should only give generalized counsel to assist marriages, if one wants to speak about specifics go to a trained professional who will assist you with issues such as self worth and addictions, the elders are way over there heads in these instances.
One last thought a girlfriend of mine went to the elders to confess she had fornicated with one of our friends. I asked her after wards how it went, she replied they were very nice but asked many questions with regards to the act. Such as if he came (her orgasm wasn’t important), was oral sex given and if the bodily fluids were swallowed. Why The F*** are they suppose to know these details?
I know you probably will not agree with me with regards who you are to divulge personal information to, but future ordeals say the minimum, remember today’s elder could be tomorrows DF’ed brother.
-
25
Hate CO Visit
by thepackage inour cong.
recently had its co visit, and i realized how fake people can be when the co is around.
elders take time off of work to go out on service during the week, ms's that want to be elders kiss butt to the co. taking the co and his wife out to lunch become a competition.
-
-
Grouper
To The Package,
Please unfurl yourself before you are appointed elder.
Late
PS........
Just kidding, nice to see you post
-
21
The need for educated proffesonals - more WT hypocrisy?
by jambon1 inone thing that always annoyed me when i was in the org was the policy on education.
i personaly am not college educated, i was`nt raised as a jw.
however, i have always appreciated the services provided by those who have had a college/university education.
-
-
Grouper
If you would like read this example on how the WTBTS tries to minimize the relevance of a higher education at elder’s school.
-
21
The need for educated proffesonals - more WT hypocrisy?
by jambon1 inone thing that always annoyed me when i was in the org was the policy on education.
i personaly am not college educated, i was`nt raised as a jw.
however, i have always appreciated the services provided by those who have had a college/university education.
-
-
Grouper
Dozy has his/her head up his/her ass.
The issue is not weather the WTBTS bans education, the issue is that JW's need the services of educated professionals, but the WTBTS doesn’t encourage their members to do their part to assist their communities in placing qualified individuals in these services that require higher education.
Dozy is correct in stating the WTBTS does not ban education in their literature, but go to you local KH or assembly and see what the theme is concerning in getting an university education. I have heard speakers that have a higher education demonize it and in not so many words ban it. This is not an isolated event, I have seen at conventions in So Cal and No Cal in both English aand Spanish.
The WTBTS uses its conventions to say what it really wants to say but does not want to be held accountable to, as it would if it printed it. If the speaker(s) denounces higher education and for all intensive purposes bans it, it is OK with the WTBTS because it could just state that those were the sentiments of the speaker but not the WTBTS, BUT WHO GAVE HIM THE OUTLINE?
The WTBTS does not directly ban higher education in its literature because it does not want to be stuck between a rock and a herd place and so people like Dozy can state that the WTBTS does not ban higher education.
Witnesses that get an education do it despite the WTBTS.