Posts by dozy

12

Alternative Service "New Light" 1996 - Reaction

by dozy in

jw
friends

are there any threads or web pages that give some feedback on the reaction to the downgrading of military alternative service from no-no to "conscience matter" in '96?

(i've read franz's comments on the change.

) if i had been in prison for 2 or 3 "prime" years on the back of a policy that then subsequently changed , i would have been furious.

dozy

6 In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for refusing to share in an activity that their conscience now might permit. For example, this might have been their choice years ago as to certain types of civilian service. A brother might now feel that he could conscientiously perform such without overstepping his Christian neutrality regarding the present system of things.

An awful (and sadly typical) reference to "New Light". I can never fathom how a Watchtower writer could possibly , in good conscience , pen such a paragraph.

12

Alternative Service "New Light" 1996 - Reaction

by dozy in

jw
friends

are there any threads or web pages that give some feedback on the reaction to the downgrading of military alternative service from no-no to "conscience matter" in '96?

(i've read franz's comments on the change.

) if i had been in prison for 2 or 3 "prime" years on the back of a policy that then subsequently changed , i would have been furious.

Are there any threads or web pages that give some feedback on the reaction to the downgrading of military alternative service from No-No to "conscience matter" in '96? (I've read Franz's comments on the change.) If I had been in prison for 2 or 3 "prime" years on the back of a policy that then subsequently changed , I would have been furious. Obviously the WT article had little effect in countries like USA & UK , but was the reaction from the R&F in countries like France where this had been a major issue?

43

Outline for Special Talk "Is God Still in Control" for April 30th 2006

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

at the end of this years memorial talk, the speaker gave an announcement that a "special talk" will be given by jehovers witnesses through the world on april 30th, 2006. here is the outline for that talk.. credit for bringing this to us goes to a person who must remain anonymous.

to download the talk outline in pdf format: click here.. .

is god still in control?.

dozy

Could someone tell me please, why, if this should be covered in 45 min it takes all day? Is this like a one day convention or what? This is not a rhetorical question.

Carla - I think you are confusing the Special Talk (45 mins) with the Special Day (1 day (actually about 4 hours)). The Special talk is just a 45 minute talk that replaces the usual public talk.

I always find "Special talks" to be a bit boring (including the ones I have given). The speaker tends to "play it straight" and deliberately misses out the illustrations and "flavour" that makes a talk more interesting.

26

Kids referring to older ones as AUNTIE or UNCLE

by lowden in

jw
friends

i don't know about other patrs of the world but in the uk, youngsters were expected to refer to older ones as auntie or uncle.

i publicly told my children not to do this, i thought it was reeeeally creepy.

my main reason for this is that i think it creates trust in people that are strangers to the family unit and for some kids, it's part of the grooming process for molestation.

dozy

My main reason for this is that i think it creates trust in people that are strangers to the family unit and for some kids, it's part of the grooming process for molestation.

I think that is a bit harsh. I always called older ones Uncle & Aunty and teach my children to do the same. It is a pleasant custom and engenders respect for older ones. This custom is by no means exclusive to JWs - a lot of the children at school call adults that they know well Aunty and Uncle.

42

Trying to find cross v. stake topics

by Sad emo in

can anybody please help me out with some links on the cross versus torture stake debate either on jwd or external sites?

i know there was a thread on here not so long ago but i can't find it.. also, if any of you long time posters can recommend any outstanding ones from the deepest recesses of jwd which you might have kept as favourites, i would be most grateful.

i have to go offline for a while now so many thanks in advance for your help.. emo

dozy

So - how much does a non-kiln-dried pine post of approximately 6 inches in diameter and about 15 to 16 feet (3' in the ground, 3' to Christ's feet, 7-8' for his body length, 1' for a sign above him) long weigh? Call your local lumberyard.

I think this is possible for a man to carry - I've seen builders carting similar sized poles around. Bear in mind that Jesus got help and he was a perfect 30 year old man , albeit one who had been sorely tortured. My back of the envelope calculations for the weight , based on a 100,000 cubic cm volume of the pole and allowing for the fact that the mass of dried pine is 300 - 500 kg/cubic m http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_wood.htm would have the weight of a dry pole at up to 50kg.
How wet it was we don't know - Israel is a hot country , and Jesus impalement took place in March / April. Depending on the degree of saturation , the water content would add 10 % - 30% to the weight , according to a forester friend of mine. The fact that Jesus carried (and gave out under the weight of) his instrument of death tends to support a "stake" argument as against a "cross" argument , as the weight of the cross beam would be much less.
It is a fascinating topic and thanks to Leolaia for her research.

42

Trying to find cross v. stake topics

by Sad emo in

can anybody please help me out with some links on the cross versus torture stake debate either on jwd or external sites?

i know there was a thread on here not so long ago but i can't find it.. also, if any of you long time posters can recommend any outstanding ones from the deepest recesses of jwd which you might have kept as favourites, i would be most grateful.

i have to go offline for a while now so many thanks in advance for your help.. emo

dozy

Thanks for the reply , guys. It does seem to somewhat inconclusive , although I appreciate the research. As usual , it is probably not quite as black and white as the WTS claims. I have to be honest - the fact that the scripture renders that the sign was nailed above Jesus' head rather than his hands and the implications of this is a completely new argument to me.

42

Trying to find cross v. stake topics

by Sad emo in

can anybody please help me out with some links on the cross versus torture stake debate either on jwd or external sites?

i know there was a thread on here not so long ago but i can't find it.. also, if any of you long time posters can recommend any outstanding ones from the deepest recesses of jwd which you might have kept as favourites, i would be most grateful.

i have to go offline for a while now so many thanks in advance for your help.. emo

dozy

Interesting discussion and links. Q - Do any other religions have a similar view of the cross as JWs (other than presumably the bible students and other associated groups) or is this belief unique to witnesses?

3

UN Question - Any Takers?

by dozy in

jw
friends

no - nothing to do with ngo / dpi or anything like that!.

my question concerns rev 17:9-11 and specifically the reference "was , but is not , and yet will be" which jws interpret as the league of nations , dissolved during ww2 & then re-established as the un.

i vaguelly recall researching how jws interpreted this scripture before 1939 & recall that they applied the "was" bit to a different un-type organisation that existed before world war 1 , was then dissolved and the "will be" was then applied to the league.

dozy

No - nothing to do with NGO / DPI or anything like that!

My question concerns Rev 17:9-11 and specifically the reference "was , but is not , and yet will be" which JWs interpret as the League of Nations , dissolved during WW2 & then re-established as the UN. I vaguelly recall researching how JWs interpreted this scripture before 1939 & recall that they applied the "was" bit to a different UN-type organisation that existed before World War 1 , was then dissolved and the "will be" was then applied to the League. I cannot remember the name of this organisation - can anybody tell me what it was?

64

What Do You Think There Is More Proof Of?

by Legolas in

jw
friends

.

god or no god?

.

dozy

Sorry god people, the "probability" argument holds no water whatsoever. Creationists (and the Watchtower) make the dubious claim that the odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10 113
Why is this wrong? I will let a molecular biologist explain: Given how little is known of the first abiogenesis event, it's pointless to even think about calculating the bability of that event. In addition, Creationist calculations of this probability are built around a number of dubious assumptions which would render the exercise meaningless even if there were a point to it (which there isn't).
To understand what is happening here, you should use population sizes, not probabilities. Here is a simplified model of the evolutionary history of a protein:
Another protein exists in a lot of life forms (say, 10 9 bacteria).
Positive mutation (which increases fitness) occurs in a small subset of the population (say, one in 10 6 individuals). That is, about 1000 bacteria. With such a large population size, the probability of the mutation happening in at least one bacterium is about 1.
By natural selection, the bacteria with the new protein outreproduce the ones with the old protein. After a few hundred generations, the population size of the new mutation is multiplied by 10 6 , giving 10 9 again.
Go to Step 1. Repeat until you arrive by the current protein.

Whoa Tiger! I was talking about the odds of a single protein evolving - you have moved down the road with 10 billion protein molecules already evolved and existing in bacteria.

The argument that if you buy enough tickets , you'll eventually win the lottery is also specious. The odds of winning the lottery (1 in 13 million in the UK) are astronomically smaller than any of the odds that athiests need to accept.

I disagree with the argument that atheists or scientists who work in this field feel that it is "pointless" to even speculate about the probabilities. They argue because it is impossible for a protein molecule to evolve , then there is no point in even discussing it , and would far start from the basis that there are alreading billions of protein molecules existing inside billions of bacteria and start from there. It involves a leap of blind faith that is far greater than any required of a theist.

64

What Do You Think There Is More Proof Of?

by Legolas in

jw
friends

.

god or no god?

.

dozy

God or no God? Answer ...God

Why? I simply cannot accept that the incredible complexity of life originated by chance. The odds of a single functional protein developing are mind boggling. Walter Bradley and Charles Thaxton (authors of The Mystery of Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories) had this to say about probability and the origin of a protein after outlining a number of arguments against an evolutionary origin of the same:

To simplify the problem, one may assume the probability of getting an L-amino acid (versus a D-amino acid) to be 50 percent and the probability of joining two such amino acids with a peptide bond to also be 50 percent. The probability of getting the right amino acid in a particular position may be assumed to be 5 percent, assuming equal concentration of all twenty amino acids in the pre biotic soup. The first two assumptions are realistic, while the third would be too low for some amino acids and to high for others.
Neglecting the problem of reactions with non-amino acid chemical species, the probability of getting everything right in placing one amino acid would be 0.5 x 0.5 x .05 = .0125. The probability of properly assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 x ...continued for N terms of .0125. If a functional protein had one hundred active sights, the probability of getting a proper assembly would be .0125 multiplied times itself one hundred times, or 4.9 x 10 191 . Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.
If we assume that all carbon on earth exists in the form of amino acids and that amino acids are allowed to chemically react at the maximum possible rate of 10 12 /s for one billion years (the greatest possible time between the cooling of the earth and the appearance of life), we must still conclude that it is incredibly improbable (~10 65 ) that even one functional protein would be made, as H.P. Yockey has pointed out. (H.P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,"Journal of Theoretical Biology 67(1981):377)

D.Kenyon and G.Steinman and Sir Fredrick Hoyle come to similar conclusions, with the latter commenting, "The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard."(F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, 1983)