Posts by Jeffro

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Just for fun, I asked Chat GPT to analyse Sea Breezes tedious question:

How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth?

And yes, Chat GPT evil, leftist, yadda yadda… I don’t care. Anyway…

The question "How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth?" seems to imply that a single microbe transformed into all the diverse forms of life on Earth. This idea is not supported by scientific evidence and is inconsistent with our understanding of evolution.
There are several errors and misconceptions in this question:
1. Fallacy of single origin: The question assumes that all life on Earth originated from a single microbe. However, the diversity of life is the result of billions of years of evolution through natural selection, genetic mutation, and other processes. Life on Earth is thought to have originated from a common ancestor, but it was not a single microbe that transformed into everything we see today.
2. Ignoring complexity: The question overlooks the vast complexity of life forms and the gradual process of evolution. Evolution occurs through incremental changes over long periods of time, with new species emerging through the accumulation of small genetic variations. It is not a sudden transformation of a single microbe into every living thing.
3. Misunderstanding of mutations: The question implies that the microbe changed itself into every living thing. However, individual organisms do not change themselves through willpower or intention. Mutations, which are random changes in genetic material, occur naturally and can lead to variations within a population. Over time, these variations can accumulate and lead to the emergence of new species.
4. Lack of scientific evidence: The question does not provide any scientific evidence or references to support the claim that a microbe transformed into all living things. Our understanding of the origin and diversity of life on Earth is based on extensive scientific research and evidence from various fields, such as paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy.
In summary, the question contains fallacies, misconceptions, and unsupported claims. It is important to rely on scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community when discussing topics like the origin and diversity of life on Earth.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

And it still isn’t the same thing as ‘a microbe changing itself into every living thing on earth’.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️

The creationist either doesn’t understand that a most recent common ancestor isn’t the same thing as the first simple form of life, or is continuing to deliberately misrepresent the process.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Now you’re just attempting to shift the goal posts. If you don’t understand the difference between ‘something being descended from something else’, and ‘a microbe changing itself to become every other living thing’, there’s no hope for you. And creationists really should stop referring to ‘evolutionists’ as if that is an actual job description. Go away.

60

The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia in

the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.

the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.

the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.

Jeffro

So I am used to being pre-judged by a mob of others who have the wrong opion of me. I am no stranger to that.

Fallacious appeal to sentiment.

The rest is basically ‘how dare you talk about something if you don’t know it as well as I do’. Supreme arrogance.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

A tiresome bait and switch. The original quote to which I replied:

How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth

There was no ‘one microbe’ that ‘changed itself into every living thing’, which is a very stupid misrepresentation of adaptations between many generations of organisms. This nonsense is on the same level as ‘if people come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?’ (Or ‘if babies turn into adults, why are there still babies?’) It’s nothing but ignorance on the part of the creationist.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Good grief. Unsubstantiated stories loosely based on an itinerant rabbi are not the magical ‘evidence’ you imagine them to be.

Also, you shouldn’t try to interpret pop science as actual science. And it still doesn’t say what you said it does.

For those playing along, See Breeze is pasting drivel from Creation Ministries International, not accurate scientific positions on anything.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Sea Breeze:

I am persuaded that people really do know God, they just don't like him even though he made great effort in trying to make friends.

So? You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, but you don’t get to decide other people’s beliefs just because an old book makes an unverifiable claim. Good grief.

And it was followed by more straw manning of evolution. For example:

How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth

It didn’t. And no one says it did. You’re spouting embarrassingly poor creationist arguments.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

See Breeze:

Belief in unsubstantiated miracles.
Unlike Christianity where there is ample evidence for the death burial and self resurrection of Jesus

🤦‍♂️ No. And what followed was even worse.

Each step straw manned, indicating you either don’t understand, or deliberately misrepresent expert views. Add to that the theistic need for made up ‘answers’ in favour of admitting they just don’t know something. 🙄

60

The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia in

the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.

the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.

the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.

Jeffro

I don’t think PS was referring to the esteemed Leolaia, who last commented on this thread 15 years ago (and whose absence is a significant loss to this forum). If he was referring to Leolaia’s posts, it certainly isn’t rational, due to Leolaia’s consistently excellent work, and absence. If PS is ‘tired of dealing with armchair exJW scholars’ (and wants to make up things about their motivations or subject knowledge) he’s entirely welcome to leave the forum.

PS has in different threads claimed to be Catholic, Jewish, and non-religious depending on how his views are expected to be received. But his recent remarks included a snide and unwarranted assertion that others supposedly ‘just want the Bible to be wrong’. Therefore whilst he obviously has a high degree of subject knowledge, his recent comments also betray significant personal bias.