If you're having trouble deciding, just err on the side of caution and take them down. (And 'papering over them' is just inviting curiosity.) It's not as though taking them down means permanently destroying them.
Posts by Jeffro
-
25Naughtiness in my bathroom
by usualusername ini have some guests coming over to spend xmas with me for a couple of days.
they are my friends family and i have a larger place than them and am playing host.. dilemma.
they are christians and i have some postcards in my bathroom that are slightly naughty.
-
-
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
scholiar:
Your table is simply a contrivance designed to mislead the gullible and further it is not scholarship because it is simply a copy of others chronology.
You keep jumping between saying my chart is not consistent with other scholars and saying it's a copy of others' work. As usual, you don't make sense.
Our computation of the Ezekiel's 390 years is simply taken from the year for the beginning of the Divided Monarchy in 997 BCE adding up all of the regnal years of the respective kings of Judah which ammounts to 390 years thus reaching the end at 607 BCE. No manufacturing or manipulation is required for the numbers simply fall into place.
Again, you keep saying 'our', but you are just a Watch Tower crony with no original thought of your own. The Watch Tower Society's chronology is full of "manufacturing and manipulation". The overarching manipulation is to 'force' a fit of superstitious JW numerology regarding 607 and 1914. However, there are various aspects of manipulation.
- Spurious periods added before Zechariah and Hoshea.
- Generally denying co-regencies, but allowing one co-regency for the entire period.
- Shifting reigns for Egypt, Assyria & Babylon to fit JW chronology (but with no specific years provided), saying every secular source on the subject 'must be wrong'.
- Redistribution of a spurious period prior to Uzziah (from 1944 JW chronology) into smaller less noticable discrepancies of a year each.
- Randomly switching between dating systems to 'explain' various inconsistencies.
- Counting years of reign from the point of 'vassalage', with no support from any source.
- Beyond one-year differences due to inconsistent use of dating systems, inability to reconcile 2 Kings 3:1, 2 Kings 15:1, 2 Kings 17:1.
- Distorted order and placement of events involving Daniel.
- Distorted placement of events of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign.
- Ignoring context of Jeremiah chapters 25-29.
There's a lot more that could be said, but that's sufficient for now.
Stern's article was straightforward and so was the specific reference chosen by the WT writers. Stern does not endorse WT chronology but certainly does agree that during the Babylonian period the land was desolated.
The only correct parts of your statements there is that Stern's article was straightforward and that Stern does not endorse WT chronology.
The only difference apart from the dates is that Stern finds no evidence for the complete dehabitation but you would not expect any other result from archaeology.
Basically, the 'only' difference is that what Stern said is fundamentally different to what the Watch Tower Society claims.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
No, it was your point ealier you said atheists cant be angry with God. I just keep reminding you of your point.
O... K... It's not really clear why you feel the need to 'remind' me of the point I made earlier in response to your illogical claim about atheists ("This anger towards God can, in MANY, atheists stop enquiry in science with religion"), which has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
I cannot be an atheist can I?
I am not an atheist as you quite rightly pointed out
To attempt to stirck up a dialogue, infers I am not an atheist.
You keep saying you're not an atheist. Did someone suggest otherwise??
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
hahahaha, I said I strike up dialogue, I did not say there was two way conversing.
You might want to look up the word dialogue.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
The example is real. It is comaparable in the sense that we can predict things without all the data. If there is a risk of harm or danger we asses the risk and make our own predictions. We decide what is or isn't probable. We don't all agree.
Your other example is not at all comparable. 'Carbon is complex' is a subjective assertion, not data that can be used for calculating the probability of a supernatural 'creator'. Apart from that, 'predicting' based on limited or no data is called guessing. You might suppose or conclude that there is a 'creator' based on your opinions, but that has no bearing on any probability.
Organic chemistry is one way I enquire about theological theories, science without religion is lame. You don't get the full picture if they aren't combined. In turn religion without science is blind, you get uneducated churgoers who worship God with no idea about the scientific facts. This is dangerous.
Statements like "science without religion is lame" and "religion with science is blind" are rhetorical throwaway sound-bites. Scientists have accomplished a great deal for humanity without needing to defer to religion. Religious superstitions have often been an impediment to the growth of knowledge.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
I think of God and strike up dialogue with him. Albeit shouting, still a dialogue.
Nope. That isn't dialogue. If you're hearing a response when you're talking (or shouting) to God, see a doctor.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
If a man beats his child for 3 yrs at 6months intervals approx, is it probable he will beat his son in the next 6 months? I would say it is probable and allow the child to live with his mother as he wishes. It's not testable, and nor should it be, but the probability of beatings recurring is high.
That hypothetical example isn't remotely similar to your assertion about 'carbon and God'. It's based on a specific (but hopefully fictitious) sample of data, and it is testable. But probably better not to though.
Carbon is complex and beautiful, so I think of God. There is not need to test my theory, no one has proven my theory wrong, but I am open minded to the possiblity and it fuels my enquiry into science further to test my theory or prove myself wrong.
'Beautiful' is entirely subjective. 'Carbon is complex and beautiful' is meaningless as a data sample for testing probability of the existence of God. As already stated, it is not possible to test your 'theory'. But if there were a testable theory for the existence of God, given all the claims Christians make about how important it is to believe in God, there would certainly be a 'need' to test such a theory.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
I don't think you want to see evidience of an intelligent creator, because God is such an enormous indifferent jerk. This anger towards God can, in MANY, atheists stop enquiry in science with religion.
You do realise, don't you, that atheists don't believe God exists?! By definition, atheists cannot be 'angry at God'. They might reason that the biblical character is a bit of a jerk, but that's an entirely different (and completely justifiable) thing altogether.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
I see your point, but you haven't given me your understanding of probabilities. You are just saying my understanding is a joke. Well that is your opinion. I am afraid I disagree with you as you have no substance to support your position of knowing what probability is. Probabilities can be predicted in many ways.
I'm not saying your 'understanding' (=opinion) is a joke (but nor is it a particularly new idea). It just has nothing to do with probability.
Concluding that there is probably an intelligent creator on the basis that carbon is complex is an (untestable) hypothesis.