...loving thoughts...
~Merry
to a better place he needs out love more than ever now
...loving thoughts...
~Merry
after the sunday culttower study is over, everyone will be expected to preach because the end is soooooooo close!.
[minimus i have added to the title so people can read yor correction.
otherwise i think people might just miss it.
I am wondering if the CO was saying there would be no public talk during his visit in a push to get everyone out in service. ?
~Merry
i would need some biographical information about william i. mann, one of the first collaborators of russell and at some time vicepresident of the zions watch tower.. i would need place and year of birth and death; years of his vicepresidency; studies; relation with russell; when and how he knew russell, etc.
etc.. does anyone know if he had musical studies?.
thanks.
According to the California Death Index, Charles William Mann was born on 1/4/1879 in Pennsylvania (whose mother's maiden name was Lansing, i.e. Sarah Lansing) and he died on 12/3/1943 in Los Angeles, California.
Leo, did you notice the Lansing confirmation in the 1880 census? Living with Wm J and Sarah Mann (and Charles W) was a Josie Lansing!
~Merry
i would need some biographical information about william i. mann, one of the first collaborators of russell and at some time vicepresident of the zions watch tower.. i would need place and year of birth and death; years of his vicepresidency; studies; relation with russell; when and how he knew russell, etc.
etc.. does anyone know if he had musical studies?.
thanks.
In 1885, W. I. Mann was listed as Vice President of the Society. He wrote one further article in Aug. 1888, Reprint 1052, "Letters to Our Children," refuting the Trinity, and signed it, Papa, W. I. M. That seems to be the last of his contributions. We do not know how the editors missed the signature Papa, but they did and it slipped into the Tower. It must not have set well with Bro. Russell, and it seems to have ended Bro. Mann’s contributions. The last thing we needed was a titled Papa among us. This information does not disqualify what Bro. Mann had written, but is submitted merely to show Bro. Russell did not necessarily concur with Bro. Mann’s thoughts. Certainly, not the title Papa. http://www.revelation-today.com/CrownsGolden.htm
~Merry
i would need some biographical information about william i. mann, one of the first collaborators of russell and at some time vicepresident of the zions watch tower.. i would need place and year of birth and death; years of his vicepresidency; studies; relation with russell; when and how he knew russell, etc.
etc.. does anyone know if he had musical studies?.
thanks.
As badboy says, there was a Wm. J. [confused with I. ?] Mann in Wilkins, Alleghany, PA during the 1880 census, with a wife named Sara, a bunch of daughters and son named Chas.
According to Zion's Watchtower, W.I. Mann lived in Swissvale, PA in 1880. I don't know the difference between a township (Wilkins) and a burough (Swissvale) but Swissvale isnt listed in the census so maybe this is him...?
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1880APR.asp
~Merry
i would need some biographical information about william i. mann, one of the first collaborators of russell and at some time vicepresident of the zions watch tower.. i would need place and year of birth and death; years of his vicepresidency; studies; relation with russell; when and how he knew russell, etc.
etc.. does anyone know if he had musical studies?.
thanks.
Hi Leo! Wonder if he's our Mann? The joys of neither being able to confirm nor deny...yet.
William I Mann is also mentioned >here< in interesting context (relationship with Russel and some who broke away from Russel) but no biographical info.
However, John H. Paton, did publish notice of Conley's death in his own competing "THE WORLD'S HOPE" magazine. Who was John H. Paton? Paton was the other prominent Nelson Barbour follower (besides Russell), who later sided with Russell when Russell and Barbour split up. Paton authored many of the "Watch Tower" magazine's articles until Russell and he split up in 1881. Evidently, William H. Conley and John H. Paton (who lived in Michigan) remained friends after the Russell-Paton split (or possibly re-established such after the Conley-Russell split). Interestingly, Paton was notified of Conley's death by William I. Mann, who had been Vice-President of the Watch Tower Society from the time of "incorporation" in 1884 until 1892. Mann had also authored many of the "Watch Tower" magazine's articles between 1879 and 1888. At some point however, Mann also separated from Russell. Mann's letter (or telegram) to Paton referred to William H. Conley as "Our very dear friend and brother". Mann's note indicated that he and several others had conducted a "prayer and praise" service at Conley's bedside the very day of his death.
http://www.exjws.net/museum/WilliamConley.htm
~Merry
and by that i mean the supreme being or jehovah or jesus or buddah or whatever you might consider to be "god".
I expect you're still busy so you haven't been able to get back to this topic yet, but I'd be interested to know if you think I effectively refuted the argument or not? If not, you could explain how I failed. Or if you think I have, I think it would be dishonest for you to use the same argument when speaking to other nonbelievers from this point on. It would essentially be trying to trick them to believe in a god, because it may sound convincing to them if they don't know how to refute it.
I'm open to any other 'reasons' for believing in a god, but you should understand I came to the atheist position after researching the many reasons and refutations in great detail. I've found (so far) that there is no reason to believe in a god. It comes down to wanting god to be true so much people believe, or not knowing all the refutations to the arguments for god's existence. I'm open to being proved wrong though. Are you?
Yes, I have been very busy. Thank you for understanding. I'm definitely not dodging you.
If I understood you correctly, I would agree that we can remove certain concepts of god from the discussion according to whether the actual teachings about them would place them within a finite universe or outside it. As such, Allah would not be excluded from the discussion because you were mistaken about the Qur'an speaking of him as having blood. I hope you didn't miss the remarks I posted also on page 3 about the nature of God in Islamic thought.
I am not a scientist but as far as my powers of observation and reason extend, I would say that it is clear to me that our universe did have a beginning and because it had a beginning it cannot be infinite if infinity means having neither beginning nor end. And if there was a time when it did not exist, it could not bring itself into existence, right? Same with the sun.
I maintain there has to be something beyond our comprehension--infinite, unmeasureable, beyond mass and energy, that brought it all into being. Our universe may have the capacity to continue forever, I don't know. It seems likely, according to my theological views, because Allah has said that he will destroy it and then recreate it, and what is recreated will be allowed to exist eternally.
Whatever the dance between matter and energy, there is still a finite amount, isn't there? Things still have limits and can be measured. And, though positive and negative numbers can go on infinitely, that which they number cannot and, as far as I know, that is their only purpose. Numbers cannot exist apart from the numbered and the numberer, can they? I don't know. I suck at math.
I am not sure why you are bringing other theoretical universes into this discussion. Is it because you ran out of room for argument in this one, having agreed that it did have a beginning? I am wondering how both of these statements can exist in your mind:
While ours certainly had a beginning
An alternative would be that the universe has always existed
This I understand a little better:
There may be countless universes, with the death of one helping a new one form.
But if all you can offer is the idea of an infinity of universes giving rise one to the next because none of them can be infinite in themselves...well, I just don't find that born out rationally by what we have to go on in this one, while I do find the explanation I offered to be rational. Why do you find the explanation I posit to be less believable than this one? Or is it simply less appealing?
Of course if it turns out there was a god behind the big bang, it certainly won't be Allah. It's more likely to be Atum, who people believed made the universe by ejaculaing it into existence.
When you thought Allah was described as having blood, you said that excluded him from our discussion. So why would you not exclude a god that is described as ejaculating? Or were you accepting the latter as a metaphor? Or were you simply being facetious?
So, no, I don't think you effectively refuted the argument I presented. Maybe effective for some, but not for me. And you can obviously say the same likewise.
As I said before, I have never really questioned the existence of God, only concepts about God. But as I began to study Islam, I was encouraged by the writings of various Muslims not to accept anything on blind faith but to use inquiry and reason in the quest for understanding and for ordering my life. This makes sense to me as Muslims are all called upon to bear witness or testify to the existence of Allah, and how can one do that effectively without presenting evidence? So I am exploring that now.
It's kind of backwards I admit, but that seems to be one of my quirks. Ironically, I was also rather backwards in math class. The teacher accused me of cheating because I didn't show my work. I couldn't. I didn't know how, even though I had the right answers. So he gave me a new set of equations to do while he watched me do them. When he was done, he just shook his head in bewilderment and said, "Well, I don't know how you got them either, but those are the answers." I eventually had to put a great deal of effort into learning how to do math in such a way as I could show how I arrived at the answers. LOL
Please excuse me if my thoughts are jumbled or rambling...too much to do and not enough sleep. Plus I confess to feeling like a Bear of Very Little Brain, but we do the best we can with what we've got, eh?
~Merry
and by that i mean the supreme being or jehovah or jesus or buddah or whatever you might consider to be "god".
Thank you for replying s_w! I don't have time to read your answer carefully now as I am trying madly to childproof my house before I babysit a toddler 2 hours from now.
I will take a sec to say
I think the koran teaches humans were made as we see them today after coming from a clot of Allah's blood.
is not a correct understanding. Allah swt is not a creature of flesh and blood. I imagine you are referring to 96:2 of the Qur'an regarding man coming from a clot of blood. Please see HERE for an explanation.
~Merry
and by that i mean the supreme being or jehovah or jesus or buddah or whatever you might consider to be "god".
I know it was rather long, _wraith, but did you read any of my post on page 3? I would be interested in what you (or anyone else) think of an approach that argues not from complexity but from limitation, finitude and dependency. As the beginning of the quote stated:
The scientific method is limited in that it can only deduce rules by repeated observations of physical phenomena. Thus the question of the existence of God does not and cannot fall into the realm of scientific thought because science deals with the mechanisms of events and phenomena within the universe i.e. the tangible and not intangible. To test the hypothesis to apply scientific proof for or against God, one would effectively have said that God is "testable".
Therefore, logically one would conclude God to be within the universe since God must be physically tangible in order to test. Since God is tangible and contained within the universe, God must be limited and therefore cannot be God. Thus scientists are falling into the same trap as the blind followers of religion, which is they are implicitly defining a role to God as the 'one who makes things work'. Since scientists have explained how things work the question of God does not arise. Those who argue from this angle have falsely assumed an attribute/essence of God in the same way Christians say God has a son or is love. To prove or disprove the existence of a creator we need to go beyond the limitations of the scientific method and proceed rationally for it is only rational thought which has the ability to deal with an issue like this.
~Merry
and by that i mean the supreme being or jehovah or jesus or buddah or whatever you might consider to be "god".
Gopher, you may find this unsatisfying as well, but it is something I read recently that made sense to me. It is not so much based on the complexity of the universe but its being limited, finite, dependent:
The scientific method is limited in that it can only deduce rules by repeated observations of physical phenomena. Thus the question of the existence of God does not and cannot fall into the realm of scientific thought because science deals with the mechanisms of events and phenomena within the universe i.e. the tangible and not intangible. To test the hypothesis to apply scientific proof for or against God, one would effectively have said that God is "testable".
Therefore, logically one would conclude God to be within the universe since God must be physically tangible in order to test. Since God is tangible and contained within the universe, God must be limited and therefore cannot be God. Thus scientists are falling into the same trap as the blind followers of religion, which is they are implicitly defining a role to God as the 'one who makes things work'. Since scientists have explained how things work the question of God does not arise. Those who argue from this angle have falsely assumed an attribute/essence of God in the same way Christians say God has a son or is love. To prove or disprove the existence of a creator we need to go beyond the limitations of the scientific method and proceed rationally for it is only rational thought which has the ability to deal with an issue like this.
When we look around at everything we can sense, these things share one factor, and that is that they are all limited. By limited we mean that they have restrictions, a starting point and an ending point, and they all have definable attributes, i.e. they are finite. Man is born and he dies. There is no one alive who will not die. During his life span, he will grow to a certain shape, height and volume. The universe is defined as all the celestial bodies... All these objects have a certain mass, shape, volume and so on. The life span of a star may be very long, but a point in time will come when it will cease to exist.
....No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything unlimited around him. All he can perceive is the finite and limited. A further attribute of everything around us is that they are all needy and dependent in order to continue existing. They are not self-sustaining or independent.... Nothing man can perceive is self-subsistent. So things exist, but do not have the power of existence....There is one fact that emerges from all this. If something is limited and finite, and does not have the power to be self-subsistent then it must have been created. Applying this to everything we see will bring us to a conclusion. If everything in the universe is created because it has not the power of being in existence on its own, and is finite and limited, then there must be a creator. This creator by contrast has to be unlimited and not needy and dependent on anything to bring it into, or sustain it's existence. The universe, the sum of all finite and dependent objects, is finite and dependent - but dependent on what? Dependent on something to start and sustain life, and something to plan and develop life. The only rational and intellectual solution to the question of creation is that there is a creator who has accounted for all that we see and perceive. R[eason] tells us that nothing can be created without a creator. Ultimately there must be a creator who is unlimited every aspect. Some scientists challenge this with a theory that everything depends on something for existence, which in turn depends upon something for existence, and so on ad infinitum. This theory is irrational, as it...uses an idea of 'infinity' that we know does not exist in reality....
Hence, looking at any planet in the universe, contemplating on any phase of life, or comprehending any aspect of man provides a conclusive evidence for a Creator, what Muslims call Allah(SWT) - This intellectual proof of the existence of Allah(SWT) is an understanding open for everyone and obligatory for all Muslims to be convinced of. Each person must explore to the limit of his understanding. Blind belief has no place in Islam. -Believing through instinctive emotions is unreliable and dangerous as emotions can change and [give] error to ones belief and actions. And if the basis of belief is irrational and weak, how can a system of life be built upon it?
From another source, as to the nature of God:
...the natureof Allah (SWT) is too vast to be encompassed by the human mind or to be conceived by human ideas because however high the human mind may soar or however far human understanding may go, it is always limited in power and ability....Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, said that a group of people used to debate the nature of Allah, glory be to Him, and the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, said to them: "Ponder over the creation of Allah and do not ponder over the essence of Allah because your minds cannot possibly encompass that."
This command does not mean to curb freedom of thought. It does not mean indifference to the search for truth nor does it restrict the exercise of reason. Rather it is meant to protect the mind from falling into the pits of misguidance and keep it away from handling questions which it is not equipped to study, nor handle, however great its powers may be. This is the approach of the righteous servants of Allah who realise the greatness of His essence and the majesty of His position....Yahya-ibn-Mu’aadh was also asked about Allah, glory be to Him, and he answered: ‘Your Lord is One.’ He was then asked ‘What is he like?’ He said, ‘He is the Lord, the All Powerful.’ He was further asked, ‘Where is He?’ He answered: ‘He is the Ever Watchful (over His creation)’. Then the questioner further said: ‘I haven’t asked you about that.’ Ibn Muaadh said: ‘What I have described to you are the attributes of Allah. Anything else is the attributes of the created.’
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/the_creed/index.htm
I thought about starting a thread once, asking how one goes about questioning the existence of God because, although I have questioned almost everything else, this was never a question that arose in my mind. I was wondering how to go about it. I could understand why other people question it, but could never understand nor explain why I didn't. I felt that this was an indication of a flaw in my reasoning process that should not go unaddressed, so I am trying.
~Merry