Posts by MuadDib

I don't think I'd have any second thoughts about knocking off an American or two. Practicality, as was said above. What's one less redneck in the world?

41

The Challange of Faith

by truth_be_told in

jw
friends

i stumbled on this site dong some research, i post now only for those you have not sinned against jehovah's holy spirit, since only jehovah knows this, some value might be taken form this.

i currently serve as the service overseer in my congregation, i have been an elder for over 10 years.. the fundmental issue that challanges every jw faith at some point are the imperfections of the wtbs, & those that take the lead sometimes make huge errors.

as a third generation jw with a huge network of elders, i have heard many bad things about those that take the lead.. some of these have effected myself and my family, this is the test, no different than what job faced, but it is more on the emotional and mental level.

MuadDib

"The Flood, you had no option but to be on the ark if you wanted to live, agree or disagree that is a fact.

Sodom & Gommorah you had to let those Angels lead you away from the city and not look back, fact.

Passover in Egypt, blood on the door posts for the firstborn to survive,fact."

None of those are facts, they are pure mythology. Not only can they be disputed, they can be entirely disproven. Fact.

16

Meet the shock troops of the Christian right?

by Makena1 in

jw
friends

meet the shock troops of the christian youth .

tell a friend .

battle cry for theocracy!

MuadDib

"Because, as a general rule, it is the Judeo-Christian ethic that has bettered the conditions of man."

Ah, yes. This would be the same Judeo-Christian ethic that taught for centuries that blacks did not have souls and so it was therefore alright to institute a global slave trade that produced the deaths of twenty million completely innocent people, not to mention the thorny problems related to the issue that we still confront today. This would be the same Judeo-Christian ethic that informed the creation of world-spanning empires based on hierarchies of race and ethnicity, resulting in the indescribable destruction of countless native cultures and the production of entire classes of people who live virtually as aliens in their own societies. This would be same Judeo-Christian ethic that unleashed the unspeakably barbaric Crusades against the Muslims, Jews, and yes, Christians of the Middle East. This is the Judeo-Christian ethic associated for two millennia with oppression, tyranny, behaviour and thought control, inequality, injustice, and virtually every single misstep made by humanity in the time period.

Conversely, every single advancement in human rights that has taken place throughout history has come about due to the efforts of people who did NOT follow the Judeo-Christian ethic - and were in many cases persecuted by that ethic's elites for their trouble. It wasn't the vested interests of the Judeo-Christian ethic that produced the American and French revolutions. It wasn't the Judeo-Christian ethic that yielded female suffrage or improved labour conditions. It wasn't the Judeo-Christian ethic that provided for the compulsory education of children. Rather, it was the Judeo-Christian ethic that stood staunchly in the way of all of these things, which have actually served to better the conditions of man, and we are much, much the better that the Judeo-Christian ethic did NOT prevail when people like yourself would have claimed it was being "attacked" or "threatened" by these GOOD THINGS.

The general rule is that human societies are intrisincally given to the persecution of dissent when it appears to threaten certain vested interests. It doesn't matter whether a society is spiritual or secular (and a lot of grey exists between the two), and secular societies have produced human catastrophes of extremely destructive degrees as well. But the fact is that the Western world became a beacon of progress after it ditched its idiotic commitment to religious fundamentalism and adopted secularism as its guiding philosophy, not before. When religion occupies its proper place in society, below the crucial safeguarding of people's basic rights before the secular and impartial law, society succeeds. Imbuing a religious ethic into society has never yielded anything but stagnation, oppression, and eventually collapse. History tells us this story over, and over, and over.

The one relevant point I got out of that article (I highly doubt these Army of God lunatics wield any real power to change the way things are) is that my generation is going to have to clean up the most monumental mess in history, thanks to the preceding generation and its bumbling greed, arrogant incompetence, and downright lack of ability to hold its shit together. And here they are again poisoning more young people with their lunacy, cutting us down and making it even harder for us to make a start of creating peaceful, productive, cooperative societies on the ruins of the steadily declining global situation. No guidance, just empty promises and hollow ideology while the world goes down the crapper.

3

Evolution's Bottom Line - Commercial Application - NY Times Op Ed

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

the usefulness of scientific theories, like those on gravity, relativity and evolution, is to make predictions.

when theories make practicable foresight possible, they are widely accepted and used to make all of the new things that we enjoy like global positioning systems, which rely on the theories of relativity, and the satellites that make them possible, which are placed in their orbits thanks to the good old theory of gravity.. creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way.

the creationists took it on their intelligently designed chins recently from a judge in pennsylvania who found that teaching alternatives to evolution amounted to the teaching of religion.

MuadDib

That is a good article. It's right on point - but I think it actually fails to get to the true heart of the issue. While the writer recognizes that fundies who dispute the conclusions of science will eventually be left out in the cold, he doesn't recognize that the fundies don't care. They don't see any point in competing globally or in improving society, because in the very near future this globe and the human societies who dwell on it will be mercifully destroyed by the vengeful return of the Messiah. The central issue is not restricted to who will be allowed to innovate where and when, but encompasses an intellectual duel between those who believe in the concrete nature of reality and what we can do to make things better, and those who believe in fanciful fantasies and consider our problems to be of divine making, solveable only through divine intervention. Catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism. Perhaps the greatest danger confronting humanity right now is the possibility that the fundies, whether in the Middle East or the Bible Belt, will win and doom us all to a reinvention of the Dark Ages.

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

MuadDib

"All that concerns me are the facts and nothing but the facts and I am staunch advocate for truth"

If that were actually true you would hardly go about your research in the manner you do. You simply parrot a religious party line and sidestep perfectly legitimate questions that undermine your lunatic conclusions. You are no scholar, you are no advocate of any valid truth, and you are not at all concerned with fact. You are a promoter for a fundamentalist religion that relies on exactly your type of stunted intellectual myopia to convince people of its harebrained eschatology. All of the rational skepticism that accompanies real scholastic research is entirely absent from your dogmatic, uncritical, vapid repetition of obsolete religious speculation.

You're just digging yourself in deeper, man. "The best of your abilities" just isn't good enough. It is plainly obvious that your real purpose here is to irritate people who do have a genuine respect for knowledge - but shit, if that gives me the opportunity to make the intellectual failure of the JWs even more apparent than it already is, by all means keep posting. I never tire of being right, so it's delightful that you seemingly never tire of being wrong. :)

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

MuadDib

"whatever its merits I get plenty of attention"

Ah, now we come to the true crux of the matter! You're not interested at all in establishing an honest interpretation of the evidence, you just want to stir up the pot. Your posts here attract attention because, unlike yourself, many of the posters here seem committed to an honest personal exploration of issues that hold both personal and intellectual attraction for them. They really, genuinely want to know and hence are irritated by your airy, feeble claims to credibility (not to mention your obvious trolling). When a mind is genuinely possessed with the desire for knowledge and wisdom it will react strongly against a mediocre intellect like your own, claiming validity and credulity while simultaneously flying in the face of all the progress in human thought made over the last two millennia.

"I have no intention of identifying and describing the credentials of the celebrated ones for it is far better and wiser for you to benefit from their research published in WT publications over many decades."

Are you so far detached from rational debate that you are unable to see that a vital part of benefitting from any source of information is the rigourous examination of its origins? Again you reveal that you are totally uninterested in the real nature of research, and far more interested in the masturbatory promotion of a single viewpoint at the expense of all intellectual honesty. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with that kind of attitude? How can you call yourself a scholar when you are so fundamentally unaware of what it takes to actually be a scholar?

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

MuadDib

"If you are concerned about the celebrated WT scholars then you should just relax and enjoy the fine spiritual food coming from the faithful and discreet slave"

Ah, the disingenuity of the blind, unquestioning sheep, inisisting that blind faith in an institutional authority is superior to personal investigation based on objective research into scientific methodology. Seriously, aren't you embarrassed to write these words down? Isn't there something in your rational mind, stunted and primitive though it might be, that recoils against such blatantly shallow paranoia? How can you honestly claim that it is better to simply accept the assertions of a group of men with no standing other than that which exists within the personal bias of the spiritual believer, than it is to investigate the true nature of reality based on whatever critically assessed sources are available? You are telling your audience to simply accept what it they are told by a very specific group rather than seeking out the truth for themselves based on their own powers of analysis and discernment. Your attitude is perfectly reminiscent of the most sickeningly debased, twisted, insane meanderings of the human mind that have characterized all of the regressive, stagnant, toxically disfunctional systems of thought and belief in human society.

You're killin' it, holmes! You're debating on a level far, far below that of all of your opponents in this thread. Bluster and pitiable apology is a poor match for the facts you've been presented with by these guys. Give it up, you'll only make the WTS look even worse. If you're unable to debate on even terms, which is patently obvious to even the most casual observer, then why don't you leave the point alone instead of giving them all more ammo? Are you that swept up in your own legalistic, bureaucratic belief system? How laughably pathetic.

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

MuadDib

But I do enjoy your posts, scholar! I enjoy the sheer sense of self-satisfaction I derive from knowing how powerfully ignorant your reasoning is, and how inferior it is to actual academic methodology. I revel in the intellectual gulf that separates fundamentalist crackpots like yourself from people who are actually capable of honestly working through the available facts and evidence in order to reach a rational conclusion. I bask in the knowledge that I am no longer like you and am able to think freely for myself instead of being mentally imprisoned in a vortex of paranoia and inadequacy. Where did I say I didn't enjoy your posts? All I said was that they indicate a weak and feeble excuse for scholasticism, not that I don't enjoy them. Come now, don't put words in my mouth.

By the way, can you please name some of these "celebrated WT scholars"? I would be most interested in an investigation of their credentials and academic standing. What exactly qualifies these people, whose extremely poorly supported opinions contravene every accepted hypothesis relevant to history (and just about every other major discipline), "celebrated scholars"? In which peer-reviewed publications will I find their contributions to our understanding of history? Which institutions laud them as recognized authorities on ancient history and religion? To which major reference works or definitive publications have they contributed? In short: put up or shut up, you fundie lunatic. You're wasting everybody's time with your hollow delusions and, while you're good for a laugh every now and then, it would be nice to see something - ANYTHING - of substance from you. Something to justify the sheer hypocrisy in choosing "scholar" as your nickname (I might just as well have picked "Latvian" for mine).

Seriously. Time to change the record. The last one's broken.

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

MuadDib

"I have over thirty years studying chronology and have completed postgraduate studies in Religion, Theology and Philosophy so I think I have good experience in all such matters."

Really? I only have about six years of studying history under my belt and I can tell you're so full of shit you can't tell your ass from your elbow. You possess absolutely none of the "intellectual credibility" you claim - in fact, everything you have said so far in this thread demonstrates exactly the opposite; that you have no intellectual credibility (and, I suspect, no accreditation or achievement to your name at all) and you are completely ignorant of academic methodology. No wonder you profess not to care for secular studies - you'd be laughed out of any serious dicussion with real scholars so fast so your head would spin.

Well, keep rambling. The world will continue to move on, and with any luck you and your toxically ignorant ilk will be left behind to molder in your own self-aggrandized delusions. The rest of us - those who actually take scholasticism seriously and know what the hell they're talking about - take great comfort that we have a better handle on things.