Posts by AllTimeJeff

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

AllTimeJeff

Hmmm, I go out to eat for a few hours and look at this debate! A couple of observations:

Theists have it over evolutionists/science in one key aspect, and that is at Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Tada! Can't argue with that. One sentence, lets move on. It's such a nice easy way to explain things.

Science has the burden of explaining the data, and they can't do this in a sentence. In fact, it's really boring. It can be tedious. If you didn't like science in high school, you proabably couldn't be bothered to learn the intricacies, the data. It is time consuming and we have lives. New discoveries often lead to explanations that require more then a 5th grade understanding of biology. But the data is there. You can argue about what it means, but the fact that things evolve and adapt is proven more and more each day.

I realize that it is easier to believe that someone created everything. It require no thought, no proof. Science tries and tries to show the evidence, and all they get is loud arguements, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It isn't a cult. A cult isolates itself from others. You might remember the JW thing..... Science, who do they isolate themselves from? What are they hiding? What could possibly be their reason to point out an invisible god is just that, invisible and inactive in the affairs of mankind today. This makes evoultionists a cult?

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

AllTimeJeff

That isn't nec true. I recall a certain Galileo pointing out that the earth wasn't the center of the univerese and embracing the Copernican Theory that the earth actually revolved around the sun.

In 1614 a Florentine priest denounced Galileists from the pulpit. Galileo wrote a long, open letter on the irrelevance of biblical passages in scientific arguments, holding that interpretation of the Bible should be adapted to increasing knowledge and that no scientific position should ever be made an article of Roman Catholic faith.
Early in 1616, Copernican books were subjected to censorship by edict, and the Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine instructed Galileo that he must no longer hold or defend the concept that the earth moves. Cardinal Bellarmine had previously advised him to treat this subject only hypothetically and for scientific purposes, without taking Copernican concepts as literally true or attempting to reconcile them with the Bible.
Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As we all know, the Catholic Church got on it's getty up and apolgized a few hundred years later.

Well, so much for the fact that Science doesn't get it. One scientist said the earth was flat. Fine. No scientist today believes this because of evidentiary discovery. In other words, it isn't a matter of faith or belief, it is a matter of fact! Science isn't married to a bad idea when the evidence doesn't support it. While Science has proven the earth is no longer flat and disacards theories when the evidence supports it, thiests in no way have the willingness to examine their own beliefs in the face of evidence and see if what they believe actually measures up with what is known. If anything, as Galileo's experience demonstrates, religion will do anything to prop up it's own superstitious ideas as opposed to admitting the most basic error. Again, how can one say they have "truth" when they can't even examine it to see if it is false?

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

AllTimeJeff

There is certain types of evolution. Im not saying there is no evolution. If theres evolution God set it in motion. I go with creation and evolution :D

It's these types of comments that caused me post my thread on faith, and why reasonable arguements as put forth by Dawkins and Harris among others deserve much attention and discussion.

Putting aside the sincerity of your beliefs, and the extreme likelihood that you are a nice person, I am sure you can look at your own statement and see the dogmatism of your statement, as if it were a foregone conclusion. Whose god? The Christian god, the Muslim god, Buddhist, etc? While you are certainly not hostile, this statement simply closes the door for any further inquiry and discussion.

Again, more education not only in Science, but in the reliability of the religious texts that we base our faith and beliefs is essential. Do we really know why we are so certain that god created this? Why such 100% certainty?

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

AllTimeJeff

I said in another thread: "In the months since I have left JW's, and have started to educate myself, the one thing I have learned about myself is that I seemed to be fairly certain on issues that I have only a passing acquaintance with. Some call it "just enough knowledge to be a danger to yourself." I am starting to believe more and more that most people have opinions and standards for living, and they have no idea how they acquired them. So the question to me isn't whether or not that you believe in evolution, but rather, "Am I willing to be intellectually honest enough with myself and actually investigate what Science has found thus far about life? Natural selection?"

I believe that if you don't believe in evolution because you were brought up in a religous tradition that rejects it out of hand, you owe it to yourself to learn more about it outside of the confines of your church/belief system. If god exisits, surely he wouldn't mind you examining evidence supposedly that god himself created?

I am sure that a theiest might say "But I have examined the evidence." If you have only read what your church or thiestic apologists have put out on the subject, than I don't think you can make that claim, that you have considered all sides of the arguement.

6

Question for Former/Current Elders.....

by Lumptard in

i recently received a phone call from an elder about an alegation that one of my ex-girlfriends brought up to the elders in her cong (the thing that she told the elders about was supposed to have happened 5 years ago when we were still together).

he told me what she had said about me and i said "o.k.

" in order to not confirm or deny that it was true.

AllTimeJeff

As the others have pointed out, some elders use speaker phone or record phone calls. I have been a part of both.So don't confirm anything on the phone, esp....

They can't DF you if you don't meet with them. My suggestion would be for you to tell them that you see no need to address this, that you have no further comment on it, and make it clear (should they continue to pursue you) that you are not yet in a place where you feel comfortable meeting with them. Repeat as necesarry until they leave you alone.

156

Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers

by Perry in

does the belief that there is no all-loving diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?.

since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker, and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?

.

AllTimeJeff

Since I opened a thread on whether faith was dangerous (read my last post on that thread) I feel compelled to answer this.

To weigh the two, no. Faith, as in faith in an unseen god whose only identitiy is revealed in scrolls dating 1-3000 years old is not as dangerous as science examining the data and coming to conclusions based on this data. There is no danger in showing the evidence, showing out how genes and behaviors adapt, and poining this out. Science is not married to a dogma. This was one of the biggest things I have learned. I was biased before to believe that "Science's dogma is evolution" as merely a counterpoint to religionists own dogma about god exisiting and god creating. I now have learned that while Science doesn't have it all figured out, they don't claim to either. Evolution is the best framework we have right now to explain things that are shown in the world around us. Dogmatic assumptions that come from ancient scrolls that do not accuratly describe what is here is very dangerous. Science makes no claim to infallibility. Many scientists make unusual claims and statements, but it is always based on a reading of some data. Whether it is right or not is the reason the scientific method exists. Religion of course is held to no such standards in order to believe and have faith.

In addition, people do not start wars because of scientific data and postulation. Wars are fought because of conflict of idea's that are irreconcilable. Such as the current Iraq war. I would also point out that belief in Evolution has no bearing on a persons behavior. It is simply a search for truth, a search that continues. Neither Science nor Religion as of yet has been able to explain the existance of evil, or why it happens. But history is abundantly clear that religion is at the forefront of most wars, a belief that god is on "our" side. While we might find terrorism despicable, the sincerity of those who are jihadists is not debatable, nor is it possible to debate the fact that they really believe Allah will reward them for their jihad against the western infidels. That is faith in its purest form!

Perry said:
Many people just do not connect with this heritage of violence that athiests maintain gives them freedom from religious servitude. Many wonder if athiests have split personalities since there is such cognitive dissonance between what they believe is their origins and what they publically practice.

What heitage of violence has athiesm caused? Between the Dark ages, the Crusades, down to our now current war against terror (or as some call it Islamic Jihad). I don't believe that atheiest publicly practice much of anything other then to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

RAF
Believing in evolution is dangerous because it leads to believe that some people are more evoluate than others.

You mean people like James Dobson and the fundamentalists who have the Republicans ear who believe that we are all going to burn in hell if we don't believe in their ideas on abortion and gay marriage? Pat Robertson, who believed and said that Katrina hit New Orleans because a lesbian of note lived in the city and thus god indiscriminatly wiped out the whole place? No, it is people of faith who are so convinced in their rightness that is dangerous, not looking at sceintific data and saying evolution is a better explanation than god.

IsaacJS2
Evolutionists don't "believe" in evolution as a set of moral principles, nor should anyone. I accept it as a scientific theory, and that's it. Evolution is not a philosophy or a religion of any sort and neither is science. To me, you seem to be objectifying us and forgetting we are people just like you.

Bravo! I used to think that exactly, but now I am no longer afraid to see what Science has to say. I as of this moment hold evolution to be nothing more then a theory, but I am educating myself on it. In the months since I have left JW's, as I have started to educate myself, the one thing I have learned about myself is that I used to be fairly certain on issues that I have only a passing acquaintance with. Some call it "just enough knowledge to be a danger to yourself." I am starting to believe more and more that most people have opinions and standards for living, and they have no idea how they acquired them. So the question to me isn't whether or not that you believe in evolution, but rather, "Am I willing to be intellectually honest enough with myself and actually investigate what Science has found thus far about life? Natural selection?"

Evolution has indeed been slandered by religion, and esp by JW's. The claims made against science and evolution by religion are simplistic, dogmatic, and purposely misleading. It is true that their are scientists who make strong assertions of dubious plausibility, but most have some facts and evidence in their corner. Religionists have only old ancient books that on real examination are utterly rejectable and silly. (As an example, YHWH of the Old Testament?? What an utterly cruel "god", and be honest, how much spin did it take from the GB to get you convinced that he was a god of love??) Science DOESN'T claim to have it all figured out, (thats my recent epiphany) and that is the point. Science is interested in learning what the truth is, and they constantly put up what they think they know with new facts, new studies, and new ideas. Science doesn't assume that the latest fact is the final fact. Truth is what can be proved and verified, if you don't know now, that doesn't mean you won't know one day......

I leave with this quote by Sam Harris. It raises a point that people of faith do not seem willing to tackle, but it sums it up for me on who is more trustworthy (and less dangerous) in the search for truth, Athiest/Evolutionists v Thiests

"It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: Either people have good reasons for what they believe, or they do not. When they have good reasons, their beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" sciences here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines, like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely on "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque-that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the Bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.

Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to Heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower."

16

January 1 WT Contradicts Itself!

by V in

compare these two quotes from the january 1, 2007 watchtower page 30 and 31:.

"the first resurrection"--now under way!

(page 30, para 18).

AllTimeJeff

Its not a contradiction. The GT, which is an indeterminate length of time (some assert that Revelation suggests 3.5 to 7 years) precedes Armageddon. Armageddon is the 'climax' of the GT. So all the WT is saying is that some of the anointed will still be 'alive on the earth' during the GT, but it is not known whether they will still be alive when Armageddon starts.

Technically, this is true. And this is an example of the mysterious, mind bending dogma the GB puts out on the GT/Armageddon scenario. It isn't a contradiction so much as a parsing of words. Does it matter that any annointed might be here for the GT, but not for Armageddon? Thats rich. Big deal, it obscures the point of "Where in the hell is that found in the bible?" Please if you want, quote me a WT. This is what they teach. Again, where is this directly stated in the bible? Or is the answer to that question to JW's "Well, do you believe there is a FD Slave, because I do and I trust them..." Which of course would be a no answer.

The problem the GB is trying to deal with is the possibility of no "annointed" being on the scene due to age and illness leading to death! Who will run things if they go? They are still fleshing this out.....

8

JWsDon't Read Your Bible! (Hymenaeus and Philetus)

by AuldSoul in

jws are clearly instructed to avoid all apostate literature and thinking.. 2 timothy 2:17, 18 and their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is hymenaeus and philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.. if jehovah's witnesses adhere strictly to their instructions from the governing body they must avoid reading these verses.

how can such avoidance be necessary for christians if paul wrote down apostate teachings in a letter to timothy?.

respectfully,.

AllTimeJeff

Ahh. I see this often. A person disagrees with the premise of a question, but instead of answering the question, he diverts it unto an entirely different subject.

In my mind, the truth, whatever it may be, should never fear honest questions. Such questions deserve an honest and direct answer on what the person does or doesn't know. The person asking the question needs to avoid charecterizing the person, although beliefs can be called into play, as well as statements made by an individual.

With that in mind, of course the bible contains apostate thinking of the time. The only consistency as usual where the GB is concerned is their inconsistency in how they interpret and what they "allow" the flock to see. As if knowing that the GB joined the UN is unscriptural for the flock to know.

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

I thank everyone for a lively debate on this matter. I just had to retype my entire reply, as I have been busy at work all week, and thus, this will be my last comment on this thread. I have observed a couple of points that I think argue against faith. I said at the beginning....

I look forward to a lively debate on this. I think about it often. Please note that it is not my intention to attack believers, but rather, to ask believers to defend their beliefs. I hope that it will not be taken personally.

Here is a quote from the first post on this thread, with questions that I asked, that were often ignored, danced around, but never addressed directly or answered directly:

I highlight FAITH because frankly, what other reason is there to belive that Muhammed flew away to heaven on the back of a horse, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, was resurrected, and will return to judge the earth? People believe in such things for a variety of reasons, but why? Isn't it a fact that we all assimilate the faith and culture of our land of birth? We have to be honest and say that if we were born in the middle east, we would likely be Muslim, and many of us would probably in all sincerity think Islam was THE way, and that Christians were pagan, desrving of death through Jihad. Those of middle eastern descent who are born here in the west and absorb western culture, values, and religous beliefs, so they too believe in the cause of the USA against terrorism...... Other then the accident of ones birth, how can one quantify claims to faith and truth? Look at the damage it causes.

Some of you in response tried to argue that it is wrong to even question faith, or people of faith. Of course, I asked in the very first post for the reasons for your faith. In this PC world that we live in, some religionists would have you believe that to suggest god doesn't exist is the highest insult, that to ask for actual evidence for belief is not necesarry at all. It is a happy accident that we don't live 500 years ago, where the same question I posed would no doubt have resulted in my being tied to a stake and set on fire.

Others, notably Little Toe, tried to change the question or suggest that I was asking the wrong ones. (with respect, if you want to change the questions, feel free to start your own thread. My questions were perfectly legit) Changing the subject is a tactic when you can't answer the question in the first place. At least it created that impression with me. For that matter, to claim that "god" or someone similar communicated personally doesn't answer the question and must be met with extreme skeptisicm. I offer two excellent pieces of reasoning on the reliability of "personal messages from god". This first one is by Richard Dawkins from "The God Delusion":

You say you have experienced God directly? Well, some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, distinctly heard the voice of Jesus telling him to kill women, and he was locked up for life. George W. Bush says that God told him to invade Iraq (a pity God didn't vouchsafe him a revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction). Individuals in asylums think they are Napoleon or Charlie Chaplin, or that the entire world is conspiring against them, or that they can broadcast their thoughts into other people's heads. We humour them but don't take their internally revealed beliefs seriously, mostly because not many people share them. Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous.

This is from Sam Harris in The End of Faith

We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or 'delusional' . . . Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.

While I have noted a wide variety of opinion, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the sheer lack of evidence brought forth to say,"I know god exists because of facts A,B, or C." Instead, people gave emotional arguements ('faith helps people get through tough times') but not reasons. It seems that Christians for example are more then happy to accept the couple of verses that says Jesus is our saviour and that we need faith, without being able to tell anyone much at all as to why the source material is itself trustworthy and accurate. The sheer amount of contradictions in both the Old and New Testament are staggering. But a believer expresses "faith" that what he believes is the accurate, unerring 100% truthful word of god. That is quite a claim, quite a belief to have, without really knowing why you believe it, or where you got your beliefs from..... Or being unable to answer the questions that were posed at the beginning....

I say this as a commentary. It does disagree with many of you, but I mean no harm by these words. I hope that a request for evidence and fact as a basis for faith doesn't cause upset. I do think it demonstrates that faith is dangerous because it in fact cannot be proven with evidence. You either believe what you are taught and/or read in ancient scrolls, or you have no faith. You either need to hear or see something no one else can see, or else you have no faith.

I end with the quote from Mr Harris that I put in my first post on this thread. I think this is the quote that scares believers the most, with respect.

"It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: Either people have good reasons for what they believe, or they do not. When they have good reasons, their beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" sciences here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines, like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely on "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque-that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the Bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to Heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower."

From here on out, I will stick to commenting on JW issues on this board, although those of you who have read this now know how I feel on the matter. Thanks!

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Cool responses all. Thanks for being interested in this. Just for my part, I want to clarify a couple of things...

I do not believe in evolution, nor do I think that the current understanding of how life got here should be represented as fact. It is certainly a work in progress. Faith is a part of certain evolutionists thinking, and some are just as unwilling to talk about the holes in their theories as are many theists theirs..... It is very unsatisfying as a view of how the world came to be, and arrogant on the part of scientists who push it so hard. My view is that no one has the current correct view, thiests or athiests, thus more honest study of how we got here needs to be gone into, and an honest discussion of what the facts show needs to take place between thiests, athiests and scientists.

A couple of my questions framed this debate in such a way so as to suggest that only people who claim to be a part of a denomination could be religous or believe in god. That wasn't my intent, I just didn't proof read those points before I posted them. I am more then happy to recognize that people of faith who believe in god may frequently want nothing to do with an organized religion. I didn't mean to charecterize you in this way if that is how you believe.

All those who are people of faith responded in one way or the other and if you would work with me on this summation, it appears that my title for this thread might have been offensive to some. I apologize, though I certainly have made the best effort I could to explain and quantify why I put it this way. Not everyone's faith moves them to destructive acts. That wasn't my point. But the fact can't be argued that faith has moved many to harm millions over the centuries. The more we are willing to believe things, esp traditions, that have little to no evidence and only ancient scrolls to turn to, such beliefs become open to interpretation to all who believe. Instead of holding people of faith to the same standards of evidence as most other fields of study or knowledge, religous people tend to offer no proofs at all, and frankly, that is because few proofs exist outside of these ancient scrolls. But they have faith. That is no longer good for me, but if that is where you are, I am not your enemy, I just wanted to talk about this and broach the subject.

I do want to answer a couple of thoughts from some of you...

Narkissos wrote
To me, the danger or benefit of faith (which both exist) are independent from its being right or wrong (sorry to repeat myself).
Iow, a wrong belief can be beneficial in some circumstances; harmful in others. Same with a true belief.

Mmmm, anything is possible. I mean, to me that is very circular reasoning, doesn't explain a great many things very well, and seems to be a theoretical arguement of convenience. For example, (please follow me here) if I had car problems involving a hose on a car, I suppose that a straw and some sturdy tape could temporarily fix a problem, but it will have to be replaced and is obviously of inferior quality, and not long term solution. I would liken this arguement similarly, if any good comes out of a wrong belief, I would say that it is at best a quick fix of inferior quality to the truth. At best this arguement is the exception, not the rule. Not that I begrudge your right to believe this. But let me repeat your arguement:

Wrong = beneficial (in some circumstances) Truth = harmful (in some circumstances)

Danger vs Benefit is actually independant from belief being right or wrong.

Alright, I doubt that we will come to any conclusion on this. I certainly disagree with that, but that is life. No hard feelings on my end.... And I apolgize to you Narkissos for missing your point. It is a limitation of the internet that I didn't catch your humor. Sorry for taking what you said the wrong way. It was my intent all along to avoid that.. mea culpa!

To answer the question, faith is only dangerous to nonbelievers!

With respect, I wanted to talk about proofs and evidence, not feelings. My question in the thread implied faith is dangerous. I received examples of some peoples faith being good and not dangerous, not that that makes what they believe correct. My arguements regarding fundamentalists were not discussed at all. Thus, no one has convinced me that faith is any less dangerous then when I began this thread. Is it too hard or scary a subject to broach with people of faith? Because this is a sensitive subject, I don't begrudge at all people of faith and their views, but I was hoping that an attempt would be made to offer some evidence, some logic, regarding why faith in these scrolls and religions is correct, the way to go, the truth. I received some possible scenarios regarding death, how we deal with death, how we cope with problems, and religous faith seems to help these ones, irregardless of whether they can prove their faith right or defend it. Being that is what it is, I would think it more honest to say such religious ideas are at best a theory, and definitly not proven truth. Thus, I would put the above statement of Deputy Dog as a platitude that didn't really contribute to the discussion. What did that mean anyway?

However, while I look forward to discussing this more, although probably not anymore today, I realize that the primary purpose of this board is to discuss issues regarding JW's. So since we have this in common, I don't want to make anyone feel bad. I think there are points to be made, but not at the expense of the purpose of this board, so I hope to all that I bantered with today will remember that this is hope..... I am tired, my brain is shutting down, so I will wish all a good night till tomorrow...