OldSoul

Joined

• started 44 topics
• posted 1,785 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OldSoul

• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  Caedes: Old soul I understood the point you were making if it's any consolation.

  Dammit! Then, why didn't you rephrase it for me, like Abaddon did? Sheez, I tell ya', some friend you are!

  Seriously, I feel consoled. Thanks.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  Abaddon,

  Delusional is the insistance one can prove a subjective experience or belief without or in oppostion to any facts. Believing you had a subjective experience, and knowing that you cannot prove this without facts is not delusional. Believing that you can disprove a subjective experience is delusional (at best you can cause a reappraisal ("I never realised helicopters could do that, damn, it wasn't a UFO")). Believing that there is true objectivity is also delusional. [edited for spelling]

  Spot on! That is exactly what I have been arguing. You said in one paragraph something that has taken me three pages worth of posts to fail to communicate. Now I am embarrassed . I suspect English is not your first language, which makes my inability to communicate that even more depressing . Go ahead, verify my suspicion, I can take it .

  LOL!

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 
  30

  I had the baby

  by Iforget in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a little girl!

  all is well and we are trying to get some sleep.

  you guess how well that going based upon the time of this post .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  IT'S A GIRL !!!

  Congrats!
• 
  42

  The story of my life (part 7- Bethel, the end)

  by onacruse in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ya know, it's odd how the "big" things just sometimes seem to bounce off your forehead, rather like seeing the trees instead of the forest.

  well, fwiw, that was the state of mind (if you can call it that) i was in, after less than a year at bethel.

  i was reassigned to the night-shift janitorial crew.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  I think ... that is, I hope that onacruse means that was (Bethel, the end). Not the end of the story, but the title of the last Bethel chapter.
• 
  163

  The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

  by jgnat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i read the most extraordinary claim the other day.

  "the bible is factual.

  " i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  WELCOME M*A*S*H !!!

  Stick around, have some fun. Knock some princes off thrones, trash the language a bit, light one of those gas attacks you became instantly famous for. Basically, have a blast in a forum where every mailbox overhangs the curb and words can be your favorite baseball bat!

  SWING AWAY!

  Looking forward to your posts.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 
  25

  The story of my life (part 6- Bethel, the second shock)

  by onacruse in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, here i am, reeling from the events of the recent weeks...and then comes a blessed respite.

  one of the "perks" of being on the janitorial crew was that, every summer, tradition sent us to mountain farm for a couple of weeks, to pick strawberries..

  ahhhhhh!!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  Craig,

  This should be a movie. You are basically writing the script. These are the scenes, the freakin' screen-play writes itself from this narrative.

  Oh, and,MORE PLEASE!!!

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 
  63

  Can any JW answer OldSoul's 4 questions about JW teachings scripturally?

  by kwintestal in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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, .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  AK-Jeff,

  Uriah was the husband of Bathsheba. Uriah was sent to the front lines after David knocked up the man's wife. David was the authority Shadow was referring to, but David wasn't a religious authority, he was a political authority. You might have been thinking of Uzzah (grabbed the ark). Or maybe you were thinking of Uzziah (stricken w/ leprosy).

  There still needs to be correlation on the comparison, because Shadow is seeming to equate religious and secular authority, in which case everyone should be Catholic. Otherwise, we are still living during the Great Apostasy and there would be no expectation of a gathering of people at this time.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 
  2

  Well this is just great, isn't it? (sarcastic)

  by Soledad in

  1. social
  2. current
  1. 
  2. 
• 

  OldSoul

  Horrible. But not unexpected. There has been a period between attacks on US soil spanning between 4 and 6 years since 1993. Between times, there have been attacks on US interests and the interests of US supporters in other countries.

  This fits the pattern. The US tends to become relaxed quickly, we think in terms of weeks and years while the terrorists think in terms of decades and centuries.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 
  63

  Can any JW answer OldSoul's 4 questions about JW teachings scripturally?

  by kwintestal in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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, .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  Shadow,

  I think there is really a fundamental difference in our approach. Do you believe there is no difference between rulership/governance over people and religious authority?

  You keep using the comparison to King David. King David was not a religious leader. He did not deliver religious edicts to his people. He was a governmental ruler.

  Pharisees and Sadducees would be a fitting comparison, but Jesus rejected their authority, encouraged others to reject their authority, and sought out those the Pharisees rejected. I can provide Scriptural examples of each of these, but I am sure you know where they are.

  If religious authority should be viewed as equal to governmental authority, why are Catholics less correct than Witnesses?

  Catholicism teaches things that are not based on Scripture and things that are directly contrary to Scripture. Jehovah's Witnesses teach things that are not based on Scripture and things that are directly opposed to Scripture. Do we draw the distinction between the two as to which things they are teaching falsely? If so, why? (1 John 4:1; Matthew 24:23-28; John 9:1-10:18; Mark 13:21-23)

  By the measure the Jews used to determine a false prophet, for instance, the Catholic Church as an organization is squeaky clean. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) Does that make them the true religion, whose authority must be obeyed?

  Some scriptures indicating the existence of separate groups

  I wholeheartedly agree!

  Two separate groups are indicated in every verse you cited. Those who are blinded vs. those who are not, those who are perishing vs. those who are not, those who originate with God (see 1 John 4:1) and those who do not, those who are Christ's brothers and those who are not (among whom would be some who treated the brothers of Christ kindly, anyway), those taken out of the nations for God's name and those who are not, those delivered by the ransom and those who are not. Two groups. Like the sheep and the goats. Like the wheat and the weeds. Like the fish in the dragnet and those not caught. Like those invited to the feast and those not invited.

  From these Scriptures, none of which even comes close to teaching the doctrines I asked about, I take it that you actually have trouble rationalizing this for yourself. If you are submitting as if to a governmental authority, please explain why Scripturally.

  In other words, Scripturally speaking, why should I submit to the Catholic Church just because Uriah submitted to David's rulership.

  Since you are focusing on the position held by the Governing Body and not on their claims, their failed prophecies, or their teachings, please explain why the same exact line of reasoning does not apply to the position held by the Papacy and Bishops of Roman Catholicism. The two claim the exact same position as far as I can tell. It is a clergy class complete with a doctrine of magisterium "teaching authority."

  The only distinction I can see is that one authority does not publicly claim infallibility. But they expect the authority to be regarded as infallibile anyway and they punish dissenters as heretical.

  No, you should not be expelled for contradicting a human teaching. No doubt some already have been and more will be in the future.

  Well, I sincerely expect I will be. I hope you will still share a meal with me, anyway. Your heart must hurt for what you see.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OldSoul

  rem:

  That's just it, rem, you assert that "There are physical explanations for the phenomenon he is describing," but you don't prove it.

  OldSoul