Resurrection is supernatural; you can only idly speculate on how it would be done. Unless you're talking about when science figures out how to scan your deceased brain and upload you to a supercomputer running a simulation of your physical brain... 
TheScarletPimpernel
JoinedPosts by TheScarletPimpernel
-
21
Does Resurrection require your DNA?
by cameo-d injust wondering because if you are cremated i don't there there are any trases of dna left in ashes.. .
-
-
TheScarletPimpernel
-
30
The Sorrow and the Pity of the Watchtower: denial of DUE PROCESS
by Terry innounthe state, action, or principle of treating all persons equally in accordance with the law.
fairness is something familiar to even the smallest child.
being treated without bias is a hunger humanity has fought for in every society; some less successfully than in present day.. in america we are guaranteed fairness when dealing with the state or federal government due to the imbalance of relative power between the individual and the state.
-
-
TheScarletPimpernel
Unfortunately, the problem of due process is inherent in all religions, not just fundamentalist ones like Jehovah's Witnesses. Terry's "invisible gun" is not only held by the Society, but by almost every God since the concept's advent.
For example, Yahweh puts the invisible gun to heads of all Christians with the threat of Armageddon. When it comes (teehee!), if you haven't been doing what he says, you're toast. Probably eternally burning toast too. That aspect of the theology removes the possibility of free will. God says "My way or I'll kill you. Maybe not today, but I'm definitely gonna get you."
As Narkissos noted, due process arose in human institutions out of a power struggle, recognizing that every human can err in judging fairness. In religions, God holds the power, so no struggle, no recognition that God's rules might be unfair, or unfairly applied, thus no due process. His instruments do his work, and if you don't like it, well you certainly can leave the religion--unless you lived in the Middle Ages, where they'd burn you at the stake..
A religious organization that isn't directly controlled by God cannot, by its very nature, be fair. The self-evident lack of any fair religion simply increases the already overwhelming probability that God just isn't there to make sure things are being done right.
A great topic Terry!
-
20
Society unsure about Adam's Sexual Orientation
by Amazing inyes, folks, the all-wise, all-knowing, all-seeing watchtower society peers into and explores all possibilities of thought and logic.
yes, right back to our beginnings they look at how adam needed to determine who would serve as his companion ... and where did he search?.
"before god created anything new, a woman, god left the man free to determine whether there was a suitable companion for him among all the lower animals.
-
-
TheScarletPimpernel
That's a classic. Two things:
1) I think Franz' asexuality got the better of him. Didn't he notice that animals tend to come in pairs, of, oh that's right, male and female? How exactly is a *female* human something "new"?
2) It appears that God was down with bestiality until Adam said no. God brought "flying creatures of the heavens before the man"? Imagine being descended from the offspring of Adam and his pigeon.. eww
-
17
Dawkin's Documentary, Root of all Evil
by ackack inroot of all evil.
part 1. part 2. interesting documentary.
ackack.
-
-
TheScarletPimpernel
BluesBrother, you're mistaking belief for faith. Faith, by its very nature, doesn't require evidence, and allows one to ignore any evidence that doesn't support it and collect any evidence that does. Belief is different.
I, like most everyone on the planet believe that Australia is south of the Equator, but should we be given conclusive evidence to the contrary, we would change said belief.
Dawkins holds certain beliefs about the nature of the universe and humanity, but these are based on current evidence. Should the evidence change--and he himself admits it will likely change to some degree in the future as science progresses--he, along with all other rationalists will change their beliefs accordingly.
Fundamentalists will maintain that God created the Universe no matter what evidence might come in the future.
Passionate atheists are not fundamentalists.
-
44
WT letter advises JWs not to edit Wikipedia articles on JW subjects
by cabasilas inapparently, the watchtower society has recently issued formal advice that individual witnesses should not edit jw articles on wikipedia.
i occasionally edit some of the jw articles on wikipedia.
a couple of days ago i noticed a comment from one of the most respected jw editors to another jw editor on his personal talk page mentioning a letter from the wt society about editing on wikipedia.
-
-
TheScarletPimpernel
I spent a lot of time last year working on the Jehovah's Witnesses pages at Wikipedia, and found that I learnt more about JW doctrine than all the time I spent as a Witness.
I imagine the key thing the WTS is concerned about is that at Wikipedia, JWs are writing about what they believe. This has always been something strongly prohibited, long before the internet was around.
When people truly teach a topic (not just parrot information from a Bible study aid), it requires a much deeper understanding, and at this depth of thought one can can easily run into unanswerable questions and logical impossibilities of the doctrine. From the WTS's point of view, it is safer for JWs to be protected from this by only reading what they are given, and only repeating what they are told.
It's sad that the WTS continues to insist upon curtailing legitimate freedoms of its members, but it seems to simply be the emergent behaviour of cults.
(Good God, the formatting this forum uses is completely nonsensical!)