Posts by WheninDoubt

28

For all still in.... fakers. Help.

by Sofia Lose in

am i alone in this feeling?

i wish i could muster the cojones needed to tell my husband "i want a divorce, move away, not be a jw anymore!".

i find myself screaming these same words over and loud inside my mind, several times a day, and yet on the outside my actions could not be more opposed to these inner feelings.. sometimes i worry that this internal conflict will cause me to go crazy.

WheninDoubt

Are you sure you’re not putting your own desires above your marriage? It seems you’re asking a bunch of apostates, atheist, and evolutionist for absolution. Instead of talking to your mate, you prefer to lose everything in the name of your own desires. Then the problem is not your mate or religion, the problem is you. God doesn’t put divisions in marriage. He units them. Perhaps something that wasn’t in you to begin with. So talk to your mate first, if he is taking too much time out of his marital obligations? Then that’s something both of you can work on. If you don’t want to be a JW because you see the desires of this world, and you believe it’s passing you by, then your mate deserves honesty. God doesn’t need that type of person in his house, regardless, what religion you’re in. So instead of looking for permission here, research your soul for a better understanding, be it with God or not, or to the four corners of the universe. The decision will be your own and not by someone else’s ideology. Be true to yourself while not being a hypocrite.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Would your illustration be before or after that creation would have sinned to go from vegetation to meat. To have teeth for foraging and digging to preservation. The bible states vegetation, however you seem to imply a marvel of modern science to know implicitly. Did you build a time machine? So then, your point being!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you wish to continue, the forum is yours, I find your argument redundant at this point.

When scientists discovered the fossilized skull of a huge prehistoric rodent six years ago in Uruguay, they could tell right away that the extinct buffalo-sized creature had freakishly large incisors.

But a new analysis of the specimen of Josephoartigasia monesi -- believed to be the "the largest rodent ever to have lived" -- reveals that this ancient relative of the guinea pig used its gigantic teeth for more than delivering a powerful bite.

“We concluded that Josephoartigasia must have used its incisors for activities other than biting, such as digging in the ground for food, or defending itself from predators," Dr. Philip Cox, a professor of physiology at the University of York and Hull York Medical School in England, who led the research, said in a written statement. "This is very similar to how a modern day elephant uses its tusks."

While not so huge as the largest non-avian dinosaurs, Gastornis was nevertheless a giant in its Paleocene and Eocene heyday between 55 and 40 million years ago. In Europe the bird towered over the mammals who inhabited the same forests – the largest herbivores and carnivores of the day were about the size of a German shepherd, with many being considerably smaller. (In North America, where Gastornis fossils were previously labeled “Diatryma“, some of the contemporary herbivorous mammals grew to bigger sizes, but there were still many smaller beasts running about.) So it seemed only natural that the monstrous bird would have preyed on the scurrying mammals, pouncing on “dawn horses” and cleaving lemur-like primates in two with it’s powerful beak. In museums and documentaries, Gastornis marked the last gasp of dinosaur dominance before mammals took over the world.

But recent research has found that Gastornis wasn’t so terrifying, after all. While a 1991 paper concluded that the bird’s beak could have made short work of many small mammals, other publications pointed out that such a beak would have been just as well-suited to cracking seeds and crunching tough fruit. More recently, tracks of Gastornis – née “Diatryma” – found in Washington show that the bird had blunted toes rather than vicious talons, and a preliminary study of dietary clues preserved in the bones of a German specimen of the bird suggested a menu of plants rather than flesh. And now paleontologist Delphine Angst and colleagues have added another line of evidence that Gastornis probably wasn’t a rapacious mammal-muncher.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

That would be incorrect,Viviane. I was just responding to Cofty's assumption: This is what happens when you feel free to make stuff up on the spot with no knowledge of your subject and no respect for facts.

So then the assertion of defending Cofty would draw the parallels on what you just mentioned.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Once again Cofty, you’re showing your own self-serving convoluted view by distortion in hatred of the subject. To call someone ignorant you must first study your own fallacies. Without it, your discussion becomes meaningless. I have no doubt you’re experienced, and knowledgeable. Use it in a good sense, so your readers will respect, what you actually bring to the table. That’s if you’re looking for, to being the champion for this forum.

Once again “Pain” and “Suffering” hold to different values. If you’re going to use one-sided arguments, then you need to expand your knowledge to reflect all aspects of your argument.

The experience of pain is shaped by a host of psychological factors. Choosing to attend to a noxious stimulus and interpreting it as painful are examples of 2 factors involving normal psychological processes. To be sure, pain is a subjective experience, and although it is certainly related to physiological processes, how individuals react to a new episode of pain is shaped and influenced by previous experience. Indeed, without learning from experience, it would be difficult to cope with pain and maintain good health. Thus, these psychological processes have tremendous value for survival.1 Yet, psychological factors are not completely understood, and the translation of their use to the clinic remains a challenge. Therefore, in this article, we focus on the most important psychological factors that have been incorporated into theoretical models of pain that may explain pain perception and treatment benefits. In our view, awareness of these factors is crucial for understanding patients in pain and is a prerequisite for integrating them into clinical practice.

With the hypothetical illustration of the dinosaurs sharp teeth. Science conforms that early dinosaurs had even sharp teeth. Your confusion starts as the animal kingdom developed let’s say fangs. If that life cycle was created and turned into carnivore, it would explain the obvious, the animal kingdom adapted. Now you can include suffering, but not before.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

How simple it sounds when logic is exercised to obscure sound research. The assertion that a heavenly creator would purposely subject its creation to pain is overreaching. Understanding all aspects of the subject, then becomes more complex than mere scenario’s. The error man continues to make is the delivery of assertions such as “pain” and “suffering” to mean the same.

PAIN: 1. physical suffering or discomfort caused by illness or injury.

SUFFERING: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

To a theist, why does God allow Suffering? God didn’t, that came about by man’s own sins.

Is that the same as pain? No, pain would be there as a warning mechanism. What does both have to do with theist, nothing since theism is a focus of rather a God or Gods existed? History shows every culture in life up to modern times has had a belief in a God of some kind. Now having said that,

The creator mentioned in the book of genesis, at no point mentioned there would be no pain. It does however stipulate on Genesis 3:16, the woman would have the pains in child baring increased. If does not reflect to make pain, rather than enhance it. Why then would a creator include pain in creation? As a warning mechanism. How would a creation figure out for example if it broke its leg and didn’t feel it? Since the creator had given all the necessary amenities for the cycle of life, then Thinking outside the box would dictate, the creator would also mend creation should something go array, but if that creation was unaware then it would expire without it ever knowing it. How do you come to that conclusion, simple; in the book of genesis 3:9-10 indicates god looking for man and not knowing where he was until Adam replied. So the assertion of an all knowing God is just a mirrored solution to the depths of creation. Does it actually mean God didn’t know, or rather God did, but was waiting to hear from man’s own mouth? That intent was made in genesis to have its creation live forever perfectly. So just as the first set of creation, any number of things to go array. That’s why man would keep the animals in subjection. The other side of having the difference between pain and suffering manifested itself in the Genesis 4:9-10 Did Abel feel pain or did he suffer when he died? The indication is no, why, because told Cain his brothers blood was crying out from the Ground. That’s why it’s also to look at the life source not just the source.

Archeology suggest, let’s say, the dinosaur’s big teeth were formed to penetrate the tuff hide of its prey. However it doesn’t explain if a creator that made the dinosaur created those big teeth to shred, let’s say heavy or thick vegetation. To contemplate one without the other, then becomes inconsistent with what man has learned and experienced thus far.

Now to an Atheist all of this would have no meaning unless there able to prove how the cycle of life actually started. The biggest research on the subject quantified its hypothesis in the 19 century. Does this mean man wasn’t thinking about it before? No, it means the interest back them wasn’t fashioned as it is today. What does this all prove, to evolutionist the cycle of life has been and will always be destructive, and to the creationist, it means that all that man has been through will one day in order to start a world that God always intended.

So to have a rational argument or irrational conversation is moot. That’s the purpose of Noah. Believe or not, the choice is your own.

34

ABCNews Nightline: Segment on JW absuse cases here......

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

here is the segment on the conti abuse case in california and jehovah's witness's response as reported on by the abcnews nightline broadcast which was shown early this morning.

it really displays some absolutely shocking behavior from not only her abuser and his (supportive) wife, but also the jw attorneys and elders via video.

i am just blown away by the audacity displayed by these monsters.. we can now understand why governing body member stephen lett slipped in his comments a couple of weeks ago about "untrue reports of child abuse" in one of his talks which can viewed on the cult's website.

WheninDoubt

A pedophile is a pedophile no matter what religion there from. A murder is a murder no matter what god they pray to. You seem to be saying a pedophile is exclusive to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Should your readers then believe you to say the Catholic Church is safer, of the Moron’s, Amish, or any religion that make every attempt to separate church from state? when Jesus spoke of what’s written in Mark 12:17 only meant about taxes, or does it say RENDER onto Caesar the things that are Caesars. Crime has never been excluded from religion.

Ancient law, the Mosaic Law suggested that a pedophile back then, upon being found guilty would be put to death. However in ancient times, there was no consensus of what a pedophile would be. However injury to a child would probably fit. The Mosaic Law was then changed to separate church and state as depicted in Mark.

Society now wants to have it both ways by confusing ancient bible law with modern government laws. So if your hatred is only to Jehovah’s Witnesses, then, perhaps it should honestly reflect modern conditions to ALL. Sin has no defense even under biblical reckoning.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

The one sided argument suggest that all creation was made to fail. The heavenly god depicted in the bible does not reflect that. The creator in genesis formed its creation in a good sense. The book of genesis speaks of two animal kingdoms being formed at a different span of time. The proposition is, when god created the first cycle of life, the book stipulated it was good. So then, there is no arbitrary sinful inheritance. However just as the choice given to man of good or bad, all creation has been given that same choice. The evidence is in the Garden of Eden where genesis speaks of all vegetation was there for nourishment not only to man but beast, so the animal kingdom didn’t start with sinful traits.

So if the first set of creation reverted to sinful ways before man was introduced, then that cycle of life would have been recycled. That first set while not inherited in sin therefore would have been acquired by its own destructive merits. After time, that first creation converted to carnivore to poison to adapt to its environment. By the time the second set of creation was formed, then god would have made adjustments to make all creation more suitable for each other, So then he introduced man but with the same stipulation or the same construct to have all vegetation there for nourishment. So the animal kingdom was not harmful nether was the vegetation again until what, this time man sinned and all of its environment adapted for existence. This is what we see today, the aftermath of a parallel phenomenon of sin.

Why wouldn’t that cycle met the same fate as the first, because of the introduction of man. What’s so special about man, that it was formed in god’s likeness and man was to keep the animal kingdom under subjection? The inference there would be to counter the destructive nature the animal kingdom had generated. Science while having the ability to pass judgement of things it perceives happened has not found evidence on the foundation to show let’s say a carnivore with a belly full of fruit. Would that mean it never happened, no it just proves science is more interested in the destructive aspect of evolution more than to prove its creation. Just as humans are today, they’re more interested in the destructive nature they see in television, than to air the good qualities man has. The same principle can be said from a parent to a child.

While the child is born imperfect through sin, the child’s early cycle of life is sinless. As the progression continues that child starts to learn good and bad, however those parents don’t have a preconceived notion on the outcome of that child. Science cannot tell those parents how their child is going to turn out until that time is there.

So to say the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is heartless and evil is disingenuous. If that were the case, then all the gods in history therefore would have the same effect, but that’s because man cannot see or refuses to understand things that are beyond their comfort.

Many people today say, well if I were god and man sinned against me? I would wipe that creation out and start new, or just maybe not create it again. Remove all the pain and suffering, all the evil or just remove the sinful people so that the good people can live in peace. It all sounds good, however to God that assertion would have far more reaching implications than the creation of this world. The question before man has been after God recycled that first creation, and removed all sinful man by the flood, God also needed to have god’s celestial creation in mind. Some of heavens sons also rebelled against him.

A creation that was there, however time frame you wish to adapt before the creation of the heavens and earth. So instead of simply saying, I will eliminate that creation, it would mean having to remove all its creation. From Jesus to us. So God of the bible is allowing man to figure out how to live in harmony with all aspects of this world, whether it’s to the animal kingdom, the environment, air, sea, or earth. But since man continues its sinful ways, then all those aliments have become destructive to man, so what’s left, to have creation recycled again but with a twist, to leave those that had faith and trust to bring this world back into shape as in the Garden of Eden, and that very question that has been in everyone’s mind can finally be answered, not by words, but by deeds.

So in a stand point of atheist or evolution without explanation to the consequences to the plight of man, it will take millenniums to kill of human existence, and whoever inherits the earth will have the same affect since no god is introduced. Then, that would mean this entire sphere and the universe is defective as it has generated only destructive things. The building block would therefore be meaningless as the cycle will go on, and on, and on. Which would be a sadder proposition than creation. What would be he point if every civilization will meet the same sad conclusion? If all animal or living organisms cycle the same way as evolution puts it by known facts. Where does that leave atheist, in the belief, billion years from now, perhaps some molecules will generate to be infallible, billions of calculated theories of evolution, thus far hasn’t proven that.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

People regardless of their stance to be pro or con, cannot reconcile the concept of theism.

Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In popular parlance, the term theism often describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Satanism. The term theism derives from the Greek Theo’s meaning "god".

The rules are changed constantly to accommodate their argument. In the case of animal cruelty, the provocation and contempt of a bad heavenly God is just to obscure the difference from the God of this sinful world. Whether man sins against man or the animal kingdom against each other or man against animal, vegetation, water, earth, or air, is an inherited trait by sin. Therefore sin continues without intervention since scripture shows even with a higher presence it amounts to the same thing, the inability of man to make changes. So then the cruelty to animals falls under the realm of man and its sinful counterpart of this world, no matter how it’s spun.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Factual conclusion. Man already knows how everything works.

Simple calculation:

A. y = mx + b

A.

B.

C. C.

Without intervention of any kind. No hacking, no editing from the owner. Let me know when A. transformed to B. or when it existt from C. However keep in mind that A. already has a foundation.

Let me know when this miracle or glory happens. Hopefully, I will still be around.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

WheninDoubt

Really? Did you actually claim to be knowledgeable on evolution and then ask that facile question?

No Cofty, I believe your ignorance is worse than mine. Pretense accumulated out of your own hatred.

That has blinded you to the simple facts on life. You have the last word. Impress your readers.