Posts by crownboy

125

Ya'll dont believe in God?

by flower in

jw
friends

i have to ask this although i have a feeling i dont really want to read the responses but anyway.

i talked to several people here today who dont believe there is a god at all.

this is disturbing!

crownboy

Thanks for the replies

Flower said:

crownboy, i disagree partially. i no longer believe that i will be killed if i do or dont do something.

Good.

a lot of what you said about christians is actually just the jw way of thinking...not true christianity. i dont subscribe to the rules anymore.

It absolutely is true Christianity. Let me first of all say I'm not trying to assasinate the character of Christains. My argument wasn't that Christains are incapable of doing good without God telling them (I belive just the opposite, Christains tell God what is good since they made up the bible), my argument was that according to the bible a person cannot simply "be saved" by faith alone, but works are absolutely necessary to be saved. I think the scripture were Paul talks about us "being saved by grace" means that God is not obligated to save us, whether we're good or bad because he's so big and powerful and we're so puny. It does not mean that we can do whatever we want and God will forgive us. Sunbeam's post was trying to say that if we love God we'll do good.

The good works flow from the new life we receive, not in the hope that they will stop God from killing us if we step out of line. A Christian is 'a new creation in Christ - the old has gone, the new has come.' (2 Co, 5)

But the whole thing employs a sort of circular logic:
Why do I do "good"? Because I belive Jesus is my saviour.

How do I know that Jesus is my saviour? Because I do "good".

It is quite possible for me to both accept Jesus as my saviour and not do good. This is not a logical impossibilty. You may argue that a "true" Christain would always do "good", but if a "true" Christain is only saved by "faith alone" and not "works" then I can quite plausibly do bad and still be saved because I believe Jesus of Nazereth died for my sins. Obviously, this is false and I know of no Christain theology (nor a Bible) that teaches this. While faith in Jesus is fine and dandy, you need to show works to please God. Whether you would do these works regardless of whether you believed in god or not is irrelevent as to the necessity of these "works" for your salvation. Whether you would pay taxes if they were voluntary is irrelevant to the fact that you must pay them. So basically, my post was addressing the neccessity of works as opposed to a Christain's heart condition. Since Christain's know that they must perform certain works for God to save them, I agreed with Mommy's statement that a Christain has to do good deeds to save himself (this is not the same as saying Christains only do things to save themselves, and it seems as if Mommy has cleared that point up), whereas atheist don't do good deeds for any cosmic reward from any zany deity.

Flower also said:

i do what i feel is right. if i want to have premarital sex i would not feel that god is going to turn his back on me because of it.

Actually, according to the bible "fornicators will not inherit God's kingdom", so yes, God will "turn is back on you" (unless of course, you repent, and back it up by works and not faith alone ).

Obviously, I don't personally judge you for having pre martial sex, as I think this is just one man's (stupid) opinion of God. But if you are a Christain you can't pick and choose what you want to follow. By the fact that you choose to ignore this rule, you've either decided that the rule is silly or unimportant (despite your life being on the line for ignoring it). How can you decide which scriptures you heed, and which you ignore? Why can the bibles rules against fornication be ignored, but you take the afterlife concept and the existence of God with dead seriousness? Why only like the scriptures that make you feel "warm and fuzzy inside", but ignore or explain away the scriptures where God is a complete murderous jerk or demands we do something uncaring (like hate unbelievers)? They are all part of the bible canon, they are "all inspired of God". If we start picking and choosing which we like, that puts the validity of the whole cannon at stake (St. Augustine wrote a great essay on this), and instead of doing as "God says", we're doing as "we please", i.e. making moral judgements apart from God. Most non- Christain societies are pretty good at making moral judgements, they didn't need YHWH. Most Christain's are pretty good at "editing" YHWH into a nicer guy than he really is. We obviously have moral scruples aside from YHWH, since the world has moral societies that know nothing of him, and Christain's are bothered when they read about YHWH being a muderous lunatic, or a deity who would destroy someone for having pre marital sex. It simply doesn't sit well with us.

i think you are mistaken in thinking that christians are only good out of fear of god. yes i want to please god but i do good because i 'want' to. i dont always walk around thinking 'hey god look, did you see that? i was just really nice to that old lady'.

Well, I already told you I don't think Christain's are only good because of God, but I do hold that the Christain God would hold not helping the old lady against you.

The reason you do good is because of your nature, not because of YHWH. There are acts of altruism throughout the animal kingdom, only humans attribute their ability to do good to some deity. While you certainly do good acts because 'you want to', do you worship God simply because you want to, or because of a reward? (WORSHIPPING GOD NOT THE SAME AS SIMPLY "DOING GOOD") Isn't the whole reason you worship God a matter of Him bringing purpose to your life (selfish, though laudible), rather than straight up gratitude? If God didn't serve a puropse for you would you care about him? It wouldn't make you a "bad person", but it's certainly more than just "gratitude".

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

125

Ya'll dont believe in God?

by flower in

jw
friends

i have to ask this although i have a feeling i dont really want to read the responses but anyway.

i talked to several people here today who dont believe there is a god at all.

this is disturbing!

crownboy

Sunbeam said:

No offence, but this is JW salvation-by-works doctrine, not mainstream Christian doctrine. Christians don't believe that they can do anything to earn their reward, all of their 'debts' have already been paid and their reward is guaranteed (salvation-by-faith-alone).

What exactly does that mean? It certainly couldn't mean exactly what you said, because that would mean we could do anything and still be saved because we simply "believe by faith" in Jesus. No Christain theolgian would teach that (at least not ant I know ) because it's not true. You can't be saved by faith alone. I could quite seriously believe in the ransom of Christ and yet do things that aren't Christain (e.g. homosexuality). According to the bible, God will not allow gays into his kingdom. All the faith in Jesus won't save you from destruction for not obeying this work. You could say that faith in Jesus will cause a homosexual to turn away from his "sinful ways" but then that would require you doing a work to prove your righteousness, hence God's grace isn't a "free gift". The gay man would be curbing his natural desire because he had "the thought at the back of his mind of reward", otherwise by your explanation God would forgive him for being sinful anyway, since salvation is a "free gift".

I agree with you that the "salvation-by-works" doctrine of the JW's is bad, but this is the same thing that is taught by orthodox Christain doctrine. Once you have to "prove" yourself to God, the gift isn't free. At least the JW's "call a spade a spade" and tell you outright that God demands x,y&z from you for you to make it to "the new world" (of course, in addition to x,y&z, the JW's also demand 1, 2& 3, which isn't in the bible). The "Orthodox Christain" teaching takes one scripture, which obviously couldn't mean what it says literally and present it to the belivers as if it were a fact. The funny thing is both the preacher and the congregation know that is not true. So basically what I'm saying is that, while we may not be able to buy our salvation from God, we must show works to get it(which is what I suspect Paul was saying). So Mommy is right in that regard. You may not as a Christain do something only for selfish reasons, but you know if you don't that God will kill you, and that's a big reason for doing a lot of things (like no pre martial sex. Only fear of God would force two 19 year olds to get married just to "get it on".) Works do count and are way more important than just believing.

Flower, here is a link to an article on morality apart from god:

. http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

While I don't explicitly rule out the possibilty of God, the bible's God is unbelievable to me. I really don't think there's a need for God, and if God is as powerful as he proports why can't he speak to us today? Why restrict yourself to ancient Jewish guys? Besides which, the bible is chuck full of errors and condractions. There are numberous threads that deal with this topic (check out threads by Joseph Alward). Best to both you and Sunbeam.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

5

Anglo- American world power?

by crownboy in

jw
friends

as any jw/ ex-jw knows, the society has declared for many years now that we are living during the reign of the final great world power, the anglo-american world power.

however, is it just me or does it seem like we are simply living with the american world power?

if you are to believe the society, wouldn't it mean that the u.s. and britain are equals in the world arena?

crownboy

As any JW/ ex-JW knows, the Society has declared for many years now that we are living during the reign of the final great World Power, the Anglo-American world power. However, is it just me or does it seem like we are simply living with the American world power? If you are to believe the society, wouldn't it mean that the U.S. and Britain are equals in the world arena? Is this really the case? Couldn't we just kick Britain's ass and take over their country? (Much like Canada ) Are they really "equals" a la Media- Persia? (to use a JW example) I've always wondered about this, even in my "faithful JW" days, because history clearly shows that Britain is no longer a "World Power" (but a pretty good country none the less, except for food and dentistry, of course ).

I think the reason for the JW reasoning is because they've run out of world powers. The bible says that there'll only be 7 World Powers, but even by the JW count there are 8. So they had to find a way to harmonize that fact with scripture, hence the Anglo- American world power. (Of course, if they took the orthodox explanation of the World Powers issue, this would be a non issue, but with the JW organization easy explanations are hard to find). What would happen if Canada were to rise as the next great military and economic power (obviously, this is very hypothetical )? Would the 7th World Power then be the Anglo-American-Canadian World Power, even if the first 2 countries aren't that powerful? Just another example of the JW's being wrong in their scriptural interpretations. Any comments?

(By the way, I'm only kidding with my British & Canadian friends. You guys are cool. )

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

8

The JW Comic Books (some naughty pics)

by Mindchild in

jw
friends

chick tracts

are those funny little comic books that christian evangelizers hand out on street corners.

the jack chick museum of fine art has all of the chick tracts online, as well as links to parody sites.

crownboy

. http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

I found this very amusing. Though some of the information there is true, if this ever happened I would be very shocked.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

12

Salman Rushdie on Anti-Americanism

by JanH in

jw
friends

anti-americanism has taken the world by storm .

the us has an ideological enemy harder to defeat than militant islam .

salman rushdie.

crownboy

I tend to agree with you, Mindchild.

As much as I'd like to give the finger to the rest of the world and tell them "the U.S. is better, so what?", I do feel we have an obligation to help the rest of the world out, if not for their interest, at least for ours. While we're far and away better than all countries, we're not better than every country combined (as yet ). If the gap between rich and poor countries continue, and we continue to exploit 3rd world countries (yes, we do exploit them. Just because they're too poor to complain doesn't mean we don't), I forsee ourselves going into "Israel mode" as far as having to protect our boarders against foreigners that hate us. Sure, our most dangerous threat right now are Islamist extremist, but don't think that our educating them but keeping them poor will change things all that much. Poor people breed hatred, pure and simple. There have been violent uprisings in non Islamic countries too. More money has to find its way to poor people. I'm not advocating Communism, but perhaps a little less greed on the part of super wealthy capitalist would go a long way in helping the poor. Pay the third world people a little more. Give them enough money to buy food and send their children to school. Eliminate the high interest rates on the debt these countries have to pay (the World Bank is the mafia), so that they can actually stand a chance of paying the actual debt and not just interest payments. Sure, the super rich will go from making immoral sums of money to very impressive sums of money, but they'll still be rich and people will be happy enough to not want to start a revolution (look at the American middle class ).

As far as people hating us because of our miltary prowess in the war, tough! I knew the American military wouldn't "take years" to crush the Taliban, and I knew our miltary could run infinite circles around our most competitive foe, much less a group of foot soldiers. If you soccer watching Euros think that's bad, who cares? (At least your education system is better ). The bastards attacked us on our soil, do we need the EU's permission to defend ourselves? (I know, 80 countries were directly touched by fatalities, but you think Luxembourg is Bin Laden's main object of hate?). You Euro's need to do some soul searching and see if maybe you guys don't suffer from "penis envy" as well. I expect better of Europeans.

And those Cuban detainees should definitely be POW's. That is a genuine example of American arrogance.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

49

BEARDS letter from GB

by Shane in

jw
friends

watchtower.

bible and tract society of new york, inc.. writing department phone (718) 625-3600.

25 columbia heights, brooklyn, new york 11201-2483, u.sa.

crownboy

I did address the issue. I said that the only reason that it is an issue is because the society has made it one. If they sent a Body of Elders letter stating that "one should not be dogmatic on matters of personal choice including beards, because it has come to our attention that certain brothers have lost privelges because of this choice" or something to that effect, along with an article in the Watchtower (probably under "Questions From Readers"), which gives the same advice to the general JW community, I guarantee not a single person would be stumbled. But the society dilberately chooses not to do so.

Not wearing a beard is not a scriptural issue, and real Christains should not be stumbled by such a thing. Where do we draw the line as far as appeasing our brothers on non scriptural issues? If a brother objects to you making a lot of money, I suppose he would be justified in taking away your priveleges? Well, he has just as must scriptural backing to do that ridiculous act as penalizing a bearded man. (Of course, if the Society said it's ok to do so that would be enough ).

If a brother is stumbled, the scriptures say that you should go to him and work it out. Of course, showing a brother that there is nothing wrong with wearing a beard scripturally would be pointless because organizationally it's wrong, so obviously this is one the organization has to handle (because Witnesses look to them for "truth").

I could also turn the question on you. Why should a person with an unscriptural hatred for beards force his brother to adopt his attitude. Shouldn't the beard hater be "trying to please everyone" and respect the brother's God given right of free choice? Couldn't he stumble his bearded brother with his irrational, unscriptural and unneccessary prejudice? If Witnesses truly used their minds, it would not be an issue.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

49

BEARDS letter from GB

by Shane in

jw
friends

watchtower.

bible and tract society of new york, inc.. writing department phone (718) 625-3600.

25 columbia heights, brooklyn, new york 11201-2483, u.sa.

crownboy

Henry P said:

Jesus had a beard because that was the custom in those days and it was acceptable by someone that served God full time. Would Jesus have a beard if he were on Earth today? Maybe, but Jesus was humble and would not do anything to stumble his brothers, especially something so minute as having a beard.

You're right. If Jesus were a JW today he would have to shave his beard so that he would "not stumble" his brothers. But why should his "brothers" be stumbled by his beard to begin with? Can you honestly say that any sane worldly person would look askance to a JW with a beard (in the US or Western Europe, were this policy is most popular)? According to the letter Witnesses shouldn't wear beards because it would stumble worldly people because it is against the local custom for respectable people to wear beards. We both know that's a load of crap. Even the society acknowleged that beards are non offensive in themselves. They only become an issue when the local elders take issue to it. And were do you think the elders get their ridiculous ideas from? The Society, of course. It's the society that is responsible for the stupid policy to begin with. What other reason would account for the totally irrational beard policy? The only time "worldy people" start hating beards is when they become JW's! I have a goatee, and while the body of elders in my congreation has no problem with it(they're fairly liberal), I have gotten negative comments about it from individual Witnesses, and from my uncle, who is an elder in another congreation and very "hard line". Yet, from "worldly people" I've gotten zero negative comments and many positive ones. Worldy people don't hate beards and Witnesses only hate them because the Society has made it that way.

You also said:

The letter is balanced in saying that if you want to grow a beard, fine. Now about the privileges, they leave it up to each individual body of elders, who know the friends in their own congregations better than the brothers in Bethel. I don't see anything wrong with that. Notice that the elders would not be involved in deciding for the individual, that decision is up to him. The elders would only be involved in analyzing if it would be appropriate for that individual to have privileges of service in the congregation.

Once again, why the hell is it even an issue to begin with if it isn't an issue in society at large? It's as illogical as taking away "privileges" for wearing a bow tie instead of a standard tie. And it's not really a choice if there's only one "right" chioce (i.e. no beard). The society basically says it's ok to discriminate against people with beards for no other reason than because of elders personal choices. That's totally unscriptural and unacceptable.

My personal view on the matter is that if the individual so desperately seeks privileges in the congregation to serve his fellow brothers and sisters, then he would not want to do anything that would cause them to stumble. He still has one of the biggest privileges, sharing in the ministry.

If the society came out with an article today saying that beards are acceptable, all stumbling blocks would automatically disappear. People in the congreation know they're only "stumbled" because the society perceives beards as evil. The society knows this, but the "no beard" policy serves two purposes. One is so the society can know how much control they have over a person, and thus their loyalty to the society. Any Witness with a beard has an "independent mind" and can be marked. That person will either be forced to get back into the "group think" mentality or be forced out. Either way, the society wins. The second reason is that it gives JW's a "special status". The fact that only the JW religion knows that "beards are evil" is yet another sign of God's approval, and thus a sign of rightousness. One who wears a beard is thus less rightous, and the non beard wearer is a better person.

As for the second part of your comment, we both know that's baloney. A JW man that's simply a regular publisher (which is what a beard wearer would probably have to settle for) is not viewed as having "the biggest priveldge" but as spiritually weak. "Why isn't brother X reaching out for more responsibility?" The ministry is simply the means for a "theocratic brother" to show his worth for other responsibilties. Elders an Ministerial Servants are easily viewed as "more spiritual" than one who simply shares in "the greatest work" regardless of whether or not the latter spends more time in this "great work" than the former ones. No matter how you look at it, the beard policy is totally unacceptable.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

9

Evolution is wrong!!!!

by crownboy in

jw
friends

however, there are certain evolutionary "proofs" that are somewhat questionable.

take, for example, the peppered moth story.

the story basically goes that the moths changed from generally white to mostly black due to natural selection because the tree trunks changed colors due to environmental factors.

crownboy

Hey.
Alan F said:

It seems to me that crownboy and perhaps Bodhisattva are relying a bit too much on criticisms of the evolution camp they read in creationist tracts, and not doing enough research themselves.

Not exactly. I've done a fair amount of research on the topic. I know more than enough than to simply take a creationist at his word. Besides, what you accuse me of is exactly what you do, except you do it with evolution. (If you are a scientist who does original research, I stand corrected, and even then much of your knowlegde can be credited to others). All most of us do is rely on the work of others, so the real issue is whether I raised a valid issue or not.

You also said:

Of course, there are plenty of writers who are not particularly bright, or up on the latest of evolutionary ideas, who might repeat any number of discredited notions. There are plenty of popular writings to this day that repeat the completely wrong idea that electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom in much the same way that planets orbit the sun. Such writings are the product of ignorance, not dishonesty.

Perhaps you are right, or perhaps you give some science writers too much benefit of the doubt. I stated in one of my post that I first learned of this problem from a scientific writing (can't remember the name), and yet I still see it repeated in textbooks& encyclopedias. Many people still believe many of these things, so I think it is up to the scientific community to make sure that things are being represented correctly (in fact, that's stated in the Talk Origins article you quoted).

You also said:

There are several "encyclopedia CD roms" on the market, so which one are you referring to?

MSN Encarta 2000.(not 2001 as earlier stated. "My bad". )

. http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp

Has a response to 10 objections raised by an anti Darwinist. Most of the objections are answered well, but the "peppered moth" answer demonstrates my point. The answer stated there is not the standard explanation given to most people. Most people are told the peppered moth story is indesputable proof in itself of Darwinian evolution, when as the person readily admitted, it's not. Scientist should make sure that this story is modified to reflect "new light" .

Ditto on the dishonesty of scientist compared to creationist. My issue wasn't with evolution vs. creation (kind of like Tyson vs. Spinx ), it's with false dissemination of information. Hopefully, I've clarified some information for you.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

9

Evolution is wrong!!!!

by crownboy in

jw
friends

however, there are certain evolutionary "proofs" that are somewhat questionable.

take, for example, the peppered moth story.

the story basically goes that the moths changed from generally white to mostly black due to natural selection because the tree trunks changed colors due to environmental factors.

crownboy

Thanks for the replies people.

Bodhisattva says:

The comparative pictures of embryos were in the past used to defend Haeckel's whacky theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (individual development repeats evolutionary development). No serious scientist would defend this view today, or even in our lifetime. However, many science textbooks still include series of embryo pictures as if they are evidentiary, and this has rightly been criticized by the so-call High Priest of current evolutionary theory, Stephen Jay Gould.

That's precisely my point. It's a known fact that that particular "proof" is false, but yet it continues to be propogated! I was reading my latest encylopedia CD rom (2001 edition), and lo and behold, the "embryo proof" is still being used!

You also said:

That's the neat thing about science - when you find a disparity you are ALLOWED to look closer, and often find out the deeper issues involved and the more complex answers.

That's absolutely true. In fact, I originally learned this fact by reading something from an evolutionist. I also saw this fact in a biology book as well as a book by a biologist who is critical of Darwinism (though he claims not to be a creationist, despite his PH.D. in theolgy). My issue isn't with evolution, it's with the dissemination of false information. There are still many who believe the "embryo proof" because it is still told, and I think this is unethical. Leave such tactics for the creationist.

Abaddon says:

Oh come on...
Tell you what, I'll not mention religious mistakes and fraud, if you won't mention scientific mistakes and fraud.

This isn't about religious fraud, it's about scientific fraud. I think we all know religion has made and will continue to make mistakes, I'm not talking about that. I'm simply addressing this issue.

You also said:

Evolutionary science is less than 200 years old, and is still being worked out, quite understandably given the changes in technology in that period, and the fact it was developing from an initial theory.

I agree with you, and once again this is not an issue. I'm not belittling the entire framework of evolutionary science, because I believe there is more than enough evidence for its veracity. What I'm against is the deliberate dissemination of false or questionable material. Evolutionist no longer use Piltdown man in their "evolutionary proofs", so why use the equally spurrious "embryo proofs" or the reasonably questionable "peppered moth" proofs? There is more than ample evidence in other areas (the fossil record, genetics), and there are other examples of animals adapting and changing in environments that can be used. So why not do so?

You also said:

Tell me what is wrong with it. Oh, and tell me what sort of creationist you are; as with other areas, religionists are incapable of agreement on this; Young Earth, Old Earth, Gap Creationist (the time period between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, not the clothing store), what are you?

Talk about jumping the gun! I don't believe the bible is the word of God, so therefore I'm none of the above (though I have a friend who works at the Gap, does that count? ). Some evolutionist feel threatened anytime a negative question is raised about the topic, and automatically think some Evangelist is going to start a debate on Intelligent Design. We're on the same team, man. In fact, you're actually one of my favourite posters because you are so logically coherent, so I was a bit surprised to see you somewhat miss your mark in your assessment of my post. (I also always thought you were a guy ).

plmkrzy said

The fact is and always has been that it was is and always will be impossible for anyone to prove the existance of God. Thats the point.
If anyone is waiting for that to be proven their going to be waisting their time bacause it will never happen.

Right on the money.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

9

Evolution is wrong!!!!

by crownboy in

jw
friends

however, there are certain evolutionary "proofs" that are somewhat questionable.

take, for example, the peppered moth story.

the story basically goes that the moths changed from generally white to mostly black due to natural selection because the tree trunks changed colors due to environmental factors.

crownboy

Or maybe it isn't.

However, there are certain evolutionary "proofs" that are somewhat questionable. Take, for example, the peppered moth story. The story basically goes that the moths changed from generally white to mostly black due to natural selection because the tree trunks changed colors due to environmental factors. However, peppered moths do not usually reside on trees and wouldn't gain some great "advantage" from changing color as the story usually tells it. In fact, most pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks are either strategically placed there by photographers or dead moths pinned to the trunks. There are also certain parts of England, which were also affected by the industrial revolution, where very little change in the peppered moth population change (i.e. white moths still had large populations despite black tree trunks).

It is also not true that all embryos look the same during early stages of development. Most of the pictures presented by evolutionist are of different embryos that happen to look alike, but this does not represent how all embryos of that species look (e.g. the salamander embryo is often shown because it fits the "mold", but a frogs embryo, which does not fit the "sterotype", will never be shown).

Evolutionist often complain about the dishonesty of creationst (and rightfully so) when they misrepresent facts to mold them to their own leanings. However, the same scrutiny should be applied to evolution as well. THe overall theory is sound, but adjustments must be made when the evidence demands it.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!