Posts by Shazard

48

New testament contradictions.

by Anti-Christ in

inspired by a certain person who is relatively new here i decided to start a new topic on the bible.

i will just mention a few nt contradictions.. 1-jesus birth.

in matthew 2:1 the bible says that jesus was born during the reign of herod the great but in luke 2:2 it says that jesus was born during the first census of israel when quirinius was governor of syria.

Shazard

BUT... if we would have 4 accounts of 4 different ppl and those accoutns would be 1:1 then it would be proof that all that stuff really happened!

Remember, next time, when you are in court, that if two wintesses does not speak exactly the same text, then the event they supposte to eyewintess does not happenned. Only such accounts which are 1:1 can be counted as reliable eyewitness!

15

ANNOUNCEMENT: My website is now up!

by B_Deserter in

if you'd like, head on over to http://skepticsannotatedwatchtower.org to check out my new website chronicling the logical flaws in watchtower literature.

i plan to do this with multiple books.

as always, comments and critique are welcome!

Shazard

I would say good start too! Sceptical start... that's good!

Do you consider not only including this scepticism but also some answers or directions to "Where would I go" question?

7

two part question (s)

by bite me in

hi, i hope everyone had a nice weekend!.

okay, to my two questions.

i figure i do it this way, because it's annoying to post something and realize i wanted to do another post, but couldn't.

Shazard

Anser to #2... Look close on both contexts (Pauls and James) and ask yourself if they both uses the word "faith" in the same sense? To help more, read in addition Hebrews 11 which is the most powerfull chapter on what is "faith"! Hint, no Paul and James uses different semantics of word "faith" that's why meny meny have got confused!

8

Making a case for evolution: answer to ID advocates

by hamilcarr in

to all defenders of intelligent design: it is wrong to assume that evolutionary mechanisms cannot be empirically observed.. i'll give only one example to show evolution is all around us:.

fish are becoming smaller and growing more slowly in response to pressures introduced by fishing, scientists say (google ulf dieckmann).. researchers call this fisheries-induced adaptive change, showing that harvesting drives evolution towards smaller fishes.. many people think evolutionary mechanisms require millions of years to bring about such drastic changes and that it is therefore impossible to empirically observe adaptive change.. it is, however, becoming more and more clear that only two or three decades are needed to provoke large changes, in particular when pressures are high.. although some of darwin's are outmoded and easy targets of id advocates, these data perfectly fit in with the mechanisms he predicted to steer evolution..

Shazard

Hamilcar... here is my response!

Often ppl does not understand the very word "evolution". There are different meanings ppl attach to the word. In reality when discussed you have to move to another level! To the very core of any organism - DNA

And here is the question. What do you understand Evolution is, coz there are different scenarious!

1. Changes in EXISTING DNA information, kind a "tooning" of organism parameteres. It is known that such things as "size" "color" are regulated by variable genes, by signalling genes. It is like changin property files on software, it is changin properties on your Windows desktop and you can get VERY VERY different sizes, colors, fonts and shapes of your desktop.

2. Are you speaking about DEGRADATING EXISTING information. Like fishes loosing their eye-sight and color when moved from natural environment in some dark cave... and soon you get species which are blind and adapted to this environment as being with eyes does not provide any survival advantage in such environment, but gene mutations which affect eye genes does not affect survival, so actually degradated fishes have better surival value then ones with eyes in dark environment. But I guess you understand that to restore eyesight in such fish you have to restore the very eye gen which is covered by random mutation genetic "noise"

3. Or you are speaking about adding NON EXISTENT genetic information to EXISTING one which provides very new functional traits and organs to the organism. And this process is direceted by RM+NS

ID stands that #1 and #2 is observable in Natural Environment but #3 lacks evidence and more, lacks mathenmatical background and from mathenmatical and IT point of view is just plain wrong as we do not know any naturalistic process which actually creates novel information where it is not presented. Only one really observable case is Intelligent agent. But no Biology or any other discipline has demonstrated Inductive transition from physical 4+1 forces to Intellect, so Intelligence for current state of affairs should be considedered as separate force which acts on matter very differently then other 4+1 (electric, magnetic, weak, strong + gravitation)

Your example is case for #1 and #2 or in Agronomy it is called - Selection!

14

Sumerian texts and the Bible

by sinis in

i have been doing a lot more research lately on the issue of religion, its beginnings, as well as civilizations, namely the oldest known culture of sumer.

i have posted some other findings on the relationship between yahweh and satan, and the indication, according to the sumerian texts that they were brothers.

it is also interesting to note that most of the initial creation stories, and flood stories, are not unique to the jews but are in fact a rip off of the sumerian texts - which predate any other civilization.. as we all know, the "new testament" does not contain the jewish name of "god" or yahweh.

Shazard

And you believe Shumerians because... ????

2

Science Does It Again!

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/02/replacement-jawbone.html.

amazing!.

metatron.

Shazard

What everybody should notice that steam cells was NOT taken from destroyed human embrios...

11

Did Jesus baptize others? Dunk or sprinkle? Words used?

by tula in

i am inspired to start this thread because of something i read on another thread.. burn the ships says it doesn't matter if you are baptised by an athiest or an elder, as long as it's done the right way.. so, since every religion has their spin on "the right way".... what concrete example did jesus give in this ritual?.

can any of you find any actual description of jesus dunking someone in water to baptise them?.

all i find is that jesus "baptized" by giving words of instruction.. .

Shazard

tula, yes, and that makes their Baptism invalid, only stupid way of getting wet... no God's promis attached to such Baptism!

11

Did Jesus baptize others? Dunk or sprinkle? Words used?

by tula in

i am inspired to start this thread because of something i read on another thread.. burn the ships says it doesn't matter if you are baptised by an athiest or an elder, as long as it's done the right way.. so, since every religion has their spin on "the right way".... what concrete example did jesus give in this ritual?.

can any of you find any actual description of jesus dunking someone in water to baptise them?.

all i find is that jesus "baptized" by giving words of instruction.. .

Shazard

Justitia Themis... are we speaking about baptism as outer ritual or about baptism in the name of Father, Son and H. Spirit? Was such baptism with pagan origin too? :)

Baptism is "right" when water with Word of God is mixed and in such way Word is given to one being baptised. Baptism is work of God not work of man. That's why it never fails as God never fails. When you make baptism into work of man, you put your faith not on God's Word but on fallable man. And then fights and doubts are born from this, coz then you can't be sure about "right" baptism as you can't be sure if the man did it correctly. And it is very Wise thing that Holy Spirit does not instruct specifics of baptism in Scripture like there are specifics of Old Testament rites... that shows exaclty what I am talking... that form of baptism is not essence, but Words of the baptism.

But ofcourse, as such understandinf of Baptism is held only by RCC, OC adn Lutherans (and may be part Anglicans) then I guess I will be minority here (I am Hardcore Lutheran)

20

FAITH DEFINED. Heb 11:1 REALLY bad in NWT. Also Richard Dawkins' definition

by Open mind in

i'm still slogging through "the god delusion" by richard dawkins, thanks in no small measure to spending too much time on jwd.

anyway, at lunch today i read dawkins, simple, elegant, somewhat embarrasing definition of faith:.

belief without evidence.

Shazard

Caedes

I still stand on my claim about Dawkins being poor phylosopher.

He defines term by negating other term defined by first term!

Phylosophically "belief" is singelton. And "justified belief" is knowledge. What Dawkins told was tautology, as belief by its very nature is "unjustified". When belief becomes justified it is called "knowledge". Stating "unjustified belief" Dawkins separates it from "justified beliefs" as defining is dividing world items into classes. So Dawkins basically defines belief as unjustified knowledge, which is wrong ans knowledge is the term depending on term "belief".

And actually here we see brainwashing as this is one of techniques of brainwashing - redefining terms, mixing basic terms with derived terms thus making delussion that Dawkins has objective truth, and everything else depends on these basic Dawkins truths... Nope... Dawkins phylosophy and phylosophical materialism depends on such terms as "belief", "truth" etc. And only then comes terms "knowledge" "empirical evidence" "rational thinking" etc.

So be carefull when one tries to redefine terms allready defined by phylosophers.

More be carefull when you mix phylosophical materialism with methodological naturalism.. Until you don't know difference of both and are not able to distinguish them, you are vulnerable to scientists like Dawkins!

22

BLONDIE RETURNS!! | COMMENTS YOU WILL NOT HEAR...

by V in

next weekend, the first lady of watchtower comments returns to the podium.... .

Shazard

Was she lost???

Well next time remember where you leave her!