irrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
Within the constraints of the Scientific Method, which explores ONLY physical reality, naturalism is entirely rational and logical. The answers to questions derived through the Scientific Method can be logically true, per the rules of the method, and can be completely honest.
Respectfully,
OLdSoul
hi everyone, haven't posted for awhile.. i am probably just rambling tonight( a few glasses of great red wine) so pardon me.
every once and awhile i just have such great sadness that begins to permiate my thoughts.not just for me but for everyone who has walked this path.
i happen to have a pretty great life, but sometimes this deep sadness rises up in me for all the things that might have been.
this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
It was not fifty years but seventy years for that is what is stated in Against Apion 1:21. All that we have here is a scibal error because 50 years cannot be placed anywhere, the Bible omits it and cannot hav e a beginning and end point because you do not accept 537 and i do not accept 587 so no chronology can be constructed with fifty years.
Scholar,
There are several basic flaws in logic in this post. Your apparent position is that if you cannot find a specific place in the Bible to correspond to the 50 years Josephus mentions that there must have been a scribal error. However, any third grader can tell you that 50 definitely "goes into" 70. You are making yourself seem more stupid and ignorant than a third grader. The 50 years could fall anywhere within the 70, and still be correctly supported by Josephus.
It is you that insists on constructing a chronology from the resulting date. The effort of a real Scholar would be devoted to determining the date itself, not how well that date fit into the framework of tribal lore in the area where the events took place. Your "Scholarship" and that of your celebrated WT scholars seems more eschatological in nature, looking for ways to attribute import to various dates instead of trying to uncover and reveal the dates of events.
You first arrive at the conlusion you need and then force the data to fit your conclusion, changing the date from 606 B.C.E. to 607 B.C.E. instead of moving 1914 to 1915, inventing a second fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy wherein every element means something distinctly different than what Daniel stated that it meant, and even attributing error to scribes when there is no basis for such an assumption, all in order to preserve an illusion of infallibility regarding prophecy. You have no claim to scholarship that I can see. If you once did, you have allowed yourself to become so thoroughly deluded by the "infallible doctrine" of your church leaders that such a claim is rendered null.
OldSoul
destruction?
naah, they know that this is really never going to happen to them.. the obscure threat of "displeasing jehovah"?
no, he isn't really real to them.. social disapproval?
i am waiting for any jehovah's witness to offer support in scripture of these four articles of faith: .
(1) the faithful and discreet slave is a class of people, .
(2) that the holy spirit directs organizations in addition to individuals, .
scholar,.
please explain the meaning of the original hebrew in this text:(zechariah 12:10).
and i will pour upon the house of david, and upon the inhabitants of jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
someone asked me if i knew anything about that.
oblviuosly i don't, so i'm reaching to all of you in this enlightened crowd to shed some light on this for me.
thanks!
Well, rootcause, you are welcome to your beliefs. I do not agree, I see the proscriptions against blood to specifically apply to the ingestion of blood, that is, the oral consumption of blood. Hopefully that does not mark me as unworthy in your eyes.
Welcome! We accept all kinds of people.
As a caution, you might want to be circumspect (cautious, respectful) in your preaching efforts to avoid making others feel uneasy with you. Otherwise, ex-Witnesses who have been told how to feel about things for a long time may take their frustrations out on you. It may not be what you deserve, but unless you respect the fact that others do not share your views, you will quickly run into angry people.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
i will soon have to be offline.
to those of you that knew of this, my friends, i'll talk atcha on email.
anyone who would like to keep in touch, my email is buggurlatgmaildotcom.. .
irrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
Ah, heck. I'll just go ahead and solve it, I guess. It is a simple exercise.
Per the method he is restricted to using, Robert K. Stock can only examine ceiling and floor, both of which are black.
Per the method the "other" is given, he is not restricted in his examination of anything in the room.
When asked, "What color are the walls?":
Robert K. Stock would have to logically answer, "What walls?" per the constraints of his method.
The "other" can honestly answer, "White."
Both examiners had a requirement that the experience be filtered through the method used. Both answers are honest. Both answers are true to the method being used. Midget-Sasquatch got the point immediately. I suspect he was not alone.
That is the essence of what I mean when I say that to even attempt to use the Scientific Method to prove the existence of God is an exercise in futility, as the spiritual realm exists outside the confines currently explorable through the Scientific Method.
Like OS wisely said, they also shouldn't expect us to be convinced either, unless we've had the experience ourselves.
I would go further. In my opinion, the chief cause of strife through religion is the insistence that others must experience exactly what the causer of strife has experienced to be worth anything. While it seems to me that it is impossible for someone to experience another's reality.
Not only do I not expect anyone to be convinced there is a God unless they have had the experience themselves, I would say it is impossible for them to be convinced there is a God without experiencing it themselves.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, claiming that naturalism is irrational is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. It at least ties with the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
irrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .