DanTheMan

Joined

• started 189 topics
• posted 6,319 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DanTheMan

• 
  8

  Some truth for all...

  by Gig in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i've attended enough meetings to know that the jw's consistently are building themselves up instead of their beloved jehovah.

  talk about idols of the heart, but sadly, they can't see it.. the truth is they use the bible to try to support their teachings, when everyone in their right mind uses their teachings to support the bible.. gig

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  I'm glad that you are smart enough that you caught on early.

  Took me years to realize that the central doctrine of JW's is that the old-timers in Brooklyn are God's mouthpiece, so you'd better submit to their authority!
• 
  3

  A Flood Geologist Recants

  by DanTheMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this was a "post of the month" on www.talkorigins.org a few months ago.

  i found this very interesting!!.

  a noted geologist once delivered a remarkable statement in a public address before what was, at that time, the premier geological society in the world:...but theories of diluvial gravel, like all other ardent generalizations of an advancing science, must ever be regarded but as shifting hypotheses to be modified by every new fact, till at length they become accordant with all the phenomena of nature.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  This was a "post of the month" on www.talkorigins.org a few months ago. I found this very interesting!!

  ---

  A noted geologist once delivered a remarkable statement in a public address before what was, at that time, the premier geological society in the world:

  ...But theories of diluvial gravel, like all other ardent generalizations of an advancing science, must ever be regarded but as shifting hypotheses to be modified by every new fact, till at length they become accordant with all the phenomena of nature.
  
  In retreating where we have advanced too far, there is neither compromise of dignity nor loss of strength; for in doing this, we partake but of the common fortune of every one who enters on a field of investigation like our own....
  
  Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.
  
  To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
  
  We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood....
  (Sedgwick, 1831, p. 312-314)

  This statement is exceptional not so much because it displays the courage to publicly admit to significant error (although such courage is both admirable and sadly rare), but more because of who made the declaration, when, and why.

  The speaker was Reverend Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge University, and at the time of his 'recantation' President of the Geological Society of London. He was a highly respected geologist (and is still considered by many to be one of the greatest geologists of all time), and until shortly before that address was considered to be one of the staunchest supporters of the deluge as a major event in the history of the earth. It should be noted that Sedgwick went on after that statement to confirm his belief in the flood of Noah as a historical event; he did not concede that the flood did not happen, but that it was not a significant geological factor:

  ...do we deny the reality of a historic deluge? I utterly reject such an inference. Moral and physical truth may partake of a common essence, but as far as we are concerned, their foundations are independent, and have not one common element. And in the narrations of a great fatal catastrophe, ... there is not a word to justify us in looking to any mere physical monuments as the intelligible records of that event...
  (Sedgwick, 1831 p. 314)

  This was a remarkable change for a man, who just a few years earlier (in 1825) had been arguing just the opposite:

  ...The sacred record tells us -- that a few thousand years ago 'the fountains of the great deep' were broken up -- and that the earth's surface was submerged by the water of a general deluge; and the investigations of geology prove that the accumulations of alluvial matter ... were preceded by a great catastrophe which has left traces of its operation in the diluvial detritus which is spread out over all the strata of the world.
  
  Between these conclusions, derived from sources entirely independent of each other, there is, therefore, a general coincidence which is impossible to overlook, and the importance of which it would be most unreasonable to deny. The coincidence has not been assumed hypothetically but has been proved legitimately, by an immense number of direct observations conducted with indefatigable labour, and all tending to the establishment of the same general truth.
  (Sedgwick, 1825; Quoted in Hallam, 1989 p.43)

  His recantation marks the death-knell for that hypothesis, although it would be a few more years before the final convulsions ceased. By 1840, however, no respected geologist continued to propose that the flood was a major factor in the history of the earth.

  The timing of this statment is also somewhat important to note, since it establishes the context of his statement with regard to other important concepts in the history of geology. Sedgwick delivered his recantation at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of London, on 18 February 1831. Obviously, this is well prior to Darwin's work; in fact, it will be another ten months before he departs on the Beagle. The first volume of Lyell's Principles of Geology has only been out for a few months, and it will be another couple of years before William Whewell coins the term 'uniformitarianism' to describe the underlying philosophy of Lyell's work. Catastrophism is the reigning school of thought in 1831, and Sedgwick one of its deans.

  The factors that dictated Sedgwick's change in perspective are important, but so are some factors that did not play a major role in this conversion. I will deal with those the non-factors first:
  -Sedgwick's scientific views did not change because his religious views had changed. In fact, as I demonstrated above, his religious, faith-based acceptance of the Noachian deluge did not change despite his admission that there was no physical evidence for the flood. (See quote above.)
  -Sedgwick did not change his views because of the influence of Lyell's uniformitarianism. Although Sedgwick had read volume one by the time he recanted, he was strongly opposed to much of Lyell's work, including the uniformitarian core. In fact, he made this abundantly clear earlier in that same address, when he reviewed Principles.
  -Sedgwick did not change his views because new discoveries had made it possible to dispense with divine influence as a cause for those deposits. The nature of the deposits had been clarified, but no new causes had been suggested. In fact, it would be several more years before Agassiz proposed and popularized the idea of the ice age, and several more before that hypothesis became generally accepted.

  Why, then, did the good Reverend's views shift so completely? His assumptions and presuppositions did not shift. God was not squeezed into a smaller gap by a new explanation for the evidence which rendered a larger divine role unnecessary. Nor did any of the other unobservable conditions Pagano claims play such a major role in the removal of God from science pertain. What then was so critical a factor to convince a man of the cloth to stop using the flood to explain major geological features?

  The answer is simple: empirical evidence. Because the 'diluvial' strata which had been cited as evidence for a global flood were composed of gravel and other unconsolidated sediments, they were harder to investigate than the older, consolidated sedimentary rock. However, after a great deal of study, some geologists had been able to map portions of the 'diluvium' and demonstrate conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time. Once this was firmly established, it became clear to Sedgwick and others that if the deposits were clearly the result of a series of distinct events, they could not have been the result of a single global flood. Therefore, as a conscientious scientist, Sedgwick rejected his previous hypothesis.

  Sedgwick's rejection of a hypothesis which was contradicted by the empirical evidence, despite his religious beliefs, is the act of the true scientist, and stands in stark contrast to the example provided by modern young-earth creationists. The modern YEC is in posession of the same data that Sedgwick was -- as well as over 150 more years of research -- but is unwilling to make the same concession Sedgwick did, even in the face of more overwhelming evidence.

  Instead, the modern YEC takes a unique perspective. Instead of treating the deluge as a hypothesis in need of test against the evidence, and subject to being discarded if found to be contradicted by the evidence (as Sedgwick did), modern YECs declare the deluge, its scope, and effects to be definite, indisputable FACT, not subject to any discussion. Instead of modifying their view of events based on the empirical evidence, they insist that the basic facts of their history are absolutely true, and that the evidence must be interpreted in this light. This, in turn, leads to a vicious cycle in their science-so-called, as they tack ad hoc modifications onto ad hoc modifications.

  Instead of taking Pagano's advice, and searching for the empirical consequences of the flood (in fairness to them, that has been done, as I demonstrated above), they attempt to create explanations for the evidence that do not contradict their assumed version of events, and then to explain discrepancies in the empirical consequenses of those explanations. And so forth. And so on. (This post has run long enough that I will refrain from posting some of the copious quantity of examples available; but can and will do so upon request.)

  The difference between the modern YEC and early geologists like Sedgwick is clear. The early geologists began by assuming that the biblical deluge was a major factor in the history of the earth. When it was demonstrated that the evidence contradicted such a view, they discarded it as a hypothesis with varying degrees of reluctance and moved on to newer, more promising avenues of investigation. The YECs begin by declaring the biblical flood to have definitely been a (if not THE) major factor in the history of the earth, and attempting to explain all of the evidence according to this belief. Sedgwick's actions are a credit to science, and his expression of continued faith in the historicity of a global flood despite the now acknowledged lack of evidence does credit to his personal level of faith. The desparate scrambling of YECs to find reasons for their faith not to be threatened by the evidence is a credit to nobody.
• 
  20

  I've never met a JW who had confidence....

  by MegaDude in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ....about their beliefs.

  've talked with many jws since i began having doubts years ago:.

  sincere publishers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  When I was a JW I had no confidence that I could defend my faith if I had to. This gave me a lot of anxiety. I usually kept my JW affiliation quiet, unless I knew that I was telling someone who wouldn't try to prove me wrong or anything.

  Funny thing is is now that I'm out, and I've learned the truth about the troof, I'm not tremendously anxious to go toe-to-toe with certain JW's in my area. They can rationalize anything.

  Edited by - dantheman on 4 November 2002 18:42:24
• 
  44

  Top Five Forbidden Watchtower Subjects

  by metatron in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if you are an 'old timer' and wonder why the watchtower and awake.

  magazines are so bland and lacking in content, it may come as no surprize.

  to you that it's often because a number of topics are 'off limits'.. that is, certain subjects are so troublesome to the watchtower leadership.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  I studied w/JWs throughout 1992, got dunked in 1993. In '92, they were still talking about the UN turning on the Harlot, the 1914 Generation, the separation work, strict neutrality (no alternative service), little flocks and other sheeps, homosexuality BAD BAD BAD, the evil clergy man of lawlessness, etc.

  After F. Franz died the wheels really seemed to come off. How much changed in just 10 short years! The meetings became so empty of any meaningful content I would just sit there and shake my head and wonder what in the hell was I doing there, what attracted me to this crap? I got so that I was afraid to open the magazines that came in the mail, the covers were often so embarrassing (Help for Arthritis Sufferers, etc.)
• 
  8

  Women in the "Truth

  by hillbilly in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  howdy all!.

  first, i'd like to thank all of you for providing a diverse and enjoyable forum.

  in my opinion, the lack of good "debate" and discussion of veiwpoints are some of the things that made my 'active duty' days less than enjoyable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  There was a cong that I attended for a couple of years where the PO was, um, zealous, to say the least. He was being groomed for CO and subbed frequently. He was very much the domineering, alph-male PO. He would often chastize the bros from the platform - "WHY AREN'T YOU REACHING OUT??!!!" Gawd I couldn't stand him.

  I remember looking around the hall on such occasions and looking at the evil non-reaching out bros w/their wives and/or families and I would think to myself how miserable it must be to be married but semi-active in the troof, yet still a believer. All the unspoken guilt and anxiety those couples must have. You could see it in their faces.

  No wonder single JW women often fare better than married ones. The single ones who have an inactive or non-JW hubby have this "other-world" away from JW-world that they can go home to and relax a little bit. When only one person is under the burdensome WT yoke, how nice it must be for them to have that escape.

  My JW life was similar. On one hand I had the JW thing, which at first gave me a sense of spiritual fulfillment (but less and less and finally zero as the years went by) but on the other hand I had my not-the-least-bit-interested, non-JW family to hang with, and I enjoyed the escape from Watchtower-World that hanging out with them provided.
• 
  9

  How did you react

  by shera in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  when we were all in the errmmm..eh hem....cough cough..."truth".how did you react to people who said negitive things about the organization and when they called it a cult?

  i recall one time,this young man tried to gentally aprouch me,he put his hand on my shoulder and he started to say,its a cult...and i remember my whole body tensed up and i practically went into a seizure to his touch.i just remember he took his hand away from me and stepped back very slowly.he stayed away from me the rest of the nite.lol,poor guy he must have tought i was a complete nutt.. i'm just glad i can laugh about it now,of course i wish i listened to him.. even the other day,i was talking to my mother and she was saying how upset i used to get with her....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  When I was still a newbie dub, I took a job where I had to work in very close proximity with a very vitriolic, obnoxious and verbose fundamentalist preacher. He would go on all day about political and religious liberals, Clinton, etc. I never met someone who was so enamored of the sound of their own voice. I couldn't stand him, he was sooo self-righteous.

  I was scared to death to tell him I was a JW. I was never a thick-skinned, debating type of JW, and I had no desire to get into it with this guy. Well, he eventually figures out my being a JW, and he let me have it. It was very humiliating. I ended up quitting the job to get away from him.

  It was a very regrettable experience in that I held on to JWism much longer because of it.
• 
  8

  checks and balances

  by teejay in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i must've been in grade school when the idea of checks and balances made total sense to me.

  recent events have made what i learned long ago an even more valid concept.. .

  the u.s. government was initially founded on the principle that no one individual (or group) should be able to rule without any kind of impediment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  I agree w/Amazing in that Liberal vs. Conservative is just another one of the checks and balances systems that has made this country great (never thought I'd say those words, but I'm appreciating more and more lately how really great a system we have in the U.S.)

  For those who hate the dems and liberals, it's not like I hear them calling for the abolishment of private property or anything. What I mean to say is that Liberal and Conservative are very relative terms. If you consider yourself a Conservative, I'm sure I could find somebody whose conservativism would make you look like a total liberal in comparison. Extremism is the danger, regardless of which ideology it springs from.
• 
  20

  What Is Your Typical Week Like Now?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  if you've left or are discontinuing the witness life, what are you doing now?

  what's a typical week day or weekend like for you?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  Welcome Bob_NC!!!

  Ah yes, a hot cup of coffee on a lazy Saturday morning. Not that I used to go out in FS on Saturday's, but now I can sit around on Saturday mornings with NO GUILT!!!!

  I work 40 hours. I like my job and my coworkers. Leaving JW and realizing that JW's aren't the center of an unfolding universal drama has been great in helping me get along with people better. I don't have to look at them through my judgemental, gotta-witness-to-them-or-they're-gonna-die WT lenses.

  I read a lot, spend time over at my sister's house (where I'm posting this right now). I do folk dancing with a Jewish dance group on Tuesday nights. I love it, I'm looking to get involved w/some other dance groups. There are a number of them in central Ohio.

  I also play soccer in a recreational league, I'm not very good (I'm somewhat athletic but not very aggressive), but it's fun and good exercise.
• 
  14

  Farah Fawcett Hair is back!

  by Beck_Melbourne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  maybe i'm so 'downunder' that i'm not up with things...but does this look right??

  is farah fawcett hair back in??

  i remember when the new charlie's angels came out and everyone who's anyone had hair styles like the angels.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  Farrah, the all-time babe.

  *sigh* isn't she lovely
• 
  31

  My Humble Uneducated Opinion!

  by 68storm in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your valued input on this board.

  i will never forgive you for making it almost impossible for me to give up coming here.

  this turned out to be like a drug for a weak willed person like myself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DanTheMan

  Thanks 68storm, your observations are right on the money.