Posts by LtCmd.Lore

5

Save lives by NOT preaching! Help me find the article....

by LtCmd.Lore in

hello, i've been away a long time.

it's 3 am right now so i don't have time to explain my year long hiatus.

sorry.. i just need to ask a question real quick.. ok, so basically the witnesses believe that if you are not contacted by jehovah's witnesses, then jehovah will judge you based on your heart condition, instead of your service as a witness.. so if you go knock on someones door and teach them the "truth" then they are now required to be a jehovah's witness or they will die at armageddon.

LtCmd.Lore

Ah, thanks Thomas. That's the exact article I was thinking of.

How did you find it by the way?

5

Save lives by NOT preaching! Help me find the article....

by LtCmd.Lore in

hello, i've been away a long time.

it's 3 am right now so i don't have time to explain my year long hiatus.

sorry.. i just need to ask a question real quick.. ok, so basically the witnesses believe that if you are not contacted by jehovah's witnesses, then jehovah will judge you based on your heart condition, instead of your service as a witness.. so if you go knock on someones door and teach them the "truth" then they are now required to be a jehovah's witness or they will die at armageddon.

LtCmd.Lore

Hello, I've been away a long time. It's 3 AM right now so I don't have time to explain my year long hiatus. Sorry.

I just need to ask a question real quick.

OK, so basically the witnesses believe that if you are NOT contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses, then Jehovah will judge you based on your heart condition, instead of your service as a witness.

So if you go knock on someones door and teach them the "truth" then they are now required to be a Jehovah's Witness or they will die at Armageddon. So it would be best for them, if you didn't come and tell them.

I KNOW I read an old watchtower that said something to that effect. It actually said something like: "So you may be tempted to simply not share the truth with your loved ones, for fear that they will reject it and become accountable. But that would be unwise, because you would then be incurring bloodguilt on your own head."

I'm sure that's nowhere near the exact phrasing, but the basic idea is that the religion is basically like a chain-letter. And you're gonna die at armageddon if you don't share the message with a bunch of other people. They in turn must share it too.

If you never get the letter, you get off free. But if you have it, you must spread it.

Anyway, I was hoping SOMEONE here would know what article I'm talking about. I just can't find it again. Mainly because I can't remember any keywords to search for on the Library.

Lore, W.W.S.D?

44

Not too bright! 21% of atheists believe in God.

by BurnTheShips in

jw
friends

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf.

think its weird?

scroll down to pages 9 and 11, where youll find 12% believing in heaven and 10% praying at least once a week.. bts.

LtCmd.Lore

alt

57

Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

by Slappy in

atheists clamor for proof of godas existence.

give us hard, physical proof they say, and then weall believe.

if evolution truly happened, how did that one apersona that evolved from monkeys learn to speak and write?

LtCmd.Lore

We can conjecture all we like, but when it comes down to it, can we say for sure?

Do you realize what you just said?

If you can't know for sure, then why do you seem so sure that it came from God?

57

Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

by Slappy in

atheists clamor for proof of godas existence.

give us hard, physical proof they say, and then weall believe.

if evolution truly happened, how did that one apersona that evolved from monkeys learn to speak and write?

LtCmd.Lore

First, what you don't seem to realize is that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I tell you I have ten bucks in my pocket, you'll probably believe me no questions asked. If I say I have a million dollars in gold in my pocket you'll probably require some evidence before you beleive me. IF however I tell you I have a baby fairy in my pocket, you'll definitely need some darn good evidence.

Why don’t they have the same desire for physical proof for Columbus or some other bit of ancient history that they take for fact?

There is nothing miraculous about Columbus.

Yet they are quick to thrust the Bible aside as just a book written by somebody as a fairy tale. Why don’t they treat these books that record the history of Columbus in the same manner?

We have original letters from Columbus written in his own handwriting to other contemporaries. Including his will. And none of these defy logic or science. http://www.bartleby.com/43/2.html

As opposed to copies of translations of copies of copies of Bible books with anonymous authors. Most of which violate multiple physical laws and defy logic.

So why is it so hard to believe the Bible? It’s a collection of accounts, written about the same God over an amount of time that is truly astounding.

"Written about the same god"Highly debatable!

OT God: Vengeful, Jealous God of War, capable of creating everything, flooding the planet and stopping the sun. Eye for Eye, and all that.

NT God: Loving, Happy God of Peace, barely able to do anything more impressive than Chris Angel. Totally abolishes the Eye for Eye rule.

Also, the four--four mind you--different accounts of the life of Jesus Christ were written by four different authors. Yes, atheists will argue, but three of those authors were ‘apostles’ of said Jesus, so that’s hardly believable.

You are confused. There is no evidence that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. In fact most of them were written long after Jesus died by anonymous authors.

Atheists also argue that why is it the Bible that has to be the Word of God? Why can’t it be the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the many other books claiming a God exists? Can these other books boast the same ‘pedigree’ as the Bible? I think not.

Well they do boast it.

However I do agree that they have as little going for them as the Bible.

Do they expound on life as the Bible does? I think not.

You've clearly never read any of the Qur'an.

But even if you were right, I fail to see why that lends any credence to the Bible at all.

To even put those books on the same level as the Bible shows a complete lack of comprehension of what those books are and what the Bible is.

If you think the Gospels were written by Apostles than you know a lot less about the Bible than I do.

Prove to me, without using the Bible, that God exists they say. This is ridiculous.

Well I wouldn't say that... I'm not going to limit the resources you are allowed to use to prove your hypothesis.

However if you base your argument on the premise that whatever the Bible says is true, then you're not going to accomplish anything until you FIRST prove this premise.

You know what; prove to me that the ‘big-bang’ and evolution really and truly happened. Don’t give me minor evidence that gives small support for a theory that has slowly been massaged to fit that minor evidence. Prove to me that matter can be created in a way that will support life, prove to me that life actually came from no life (through natural processes), prove to me that one (can’t be more than one, that doesn’t fit the theory) type of micro, one-celled, asexually reproducing organism evolved into the countless, many celled species that inhabit the world today. Prove to me that not only did that single organism evolve into those countless species, but prove that it evolved into a male and a female of each species who somehow had the proper organs to reproduce sexually even though that single organism reproduced asexually. Prove to me that these species are still evolving into better species. We can’t you reply, we don’t have the time. Ah…and there lies the irrefutable defense. For all this took place over a span that covered billions and billions of years; there is no way to prove this ‘theory’ in the course of known human history let alone in our lifetime.

Irrelevant.

Even if we had NO alternative theory WHATSOEVER, that STILL doesn't make "God Did It" a logical conclusion.

Even in the complete absence of an alternative, you can't just make something up. (Or use what somebody 4000 years ago just made up) And assert it as correct without any evidence.

This would be the equivalent of finding a strange rock formation you can't explain, and then assuming Leprechauns built it.

One more point, where did we learn to speak and write? Who taught us?

... Well I'm not sure about everyone else, but my parents taught me.

Without our predecessors, how would we know how to do those two things?

We'd make up our own language.

We cannot teach ourselves these things. This is impossible.

On what do you base this assertion?

Have you ever known of a truly deaf (no offense in any way, shape, or form) person to speak (vocally) as fluently as one who isn’t deaf?

No. Instead they MAKE UP A NEW language, like Sign Language.

And Blind People read with Braille... This fact blows your last assertion out of the water. Braille was INVENTED in 1821 by Louis Braille. That's right, he taught himself this.. He didn't learn it from anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braille

So why don’t monkeys talk now?

Because Monkeys are not yet as smart as (most) humans.

However they DO have primitive language abilities.

Because, for you, it’s better than believing in the alternative.

How do you figure that? You think I don't WISH I could live forever?

That would be great! Why would it be better for me to die than to live forever?

I’m not sure why.

Me either, that's stupid. But wishful thinking doesn't make something true. So as much as I wish there was a god and an afterlife. (And I most certainly DO.)

Wishing doesn't make it so.

Lore - W.W.S.D

17

Why I Believe The Bible, A Nuclear Scientist Tells His Story

by whereami in

jw
friends

this guy obviously hasn't done enough research.. http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm.

LtCmd.Lore

Nevertheless, I was still skeptical about the teachings of the Witnesses, and I was looking forward to doing a mathematical check of the Bible prophecy concerning the year 1914. I thought that this approach would no doubt intimidate the Witness and, hopefully, help my wife to see the error of the beliefs taught by the Witnesses.

... He's a nuclear scientist, not a historian or a mathematician...

This is similar to them quoting an astronomer who disagrees with evolution.

9