Posts by Brother Apostate

58

Why do bible thumpers have to immagine a God who test.

by jaguarbass in

jw
friends

i get this daily email from a bible thumping friend of mine this was part of todays topic.. sometimes we wonder, "why do we have to go through these trials & breakings, lord?

" well, there are some things the lord can't reveal to you in advance because you're not yet ready.

he's got to let you go through some testings without your even knowing what the future holds, to see if you can take it, to see how loyal you are, to see how strong you are, to see how faithful you are, to see if you will be willing to do whatever he asks!

Brother Apostate

Cog,

I can assure you that my statements are of my own origin. Any similarity to others thoughts is purely coincidental. As for your child-parent analogy, yes it is useful. Parents as well as teachers test children to see what they have learned. Have they learned correctly, and will they obey? Only testing proves one way or another whether they have or have not. Tests start out simple, and increase in complexity and difficulty as we grow and learn. So, too, God tests (some of) us and allows all of us to be tested as we grow and learn.

Our will to obey Him by overcoming those tests is what proves us faithful and, potentially, righteous.

BA

58

Why do bible thumpers have to immagine a God who test.

by jaguarbass in

jw
friends

i get this daily email from a bible thumping friend of mine this was part of todays topic.. sometimes we wonder, "why do we have to go through these trials & breakings, lord?

" well, there are some things the lord can't reveal to you in advance because you're not yet ready.

he's got to let you go through some testings without your even knowing what the future holds, to see if you can take it, to see how loyal you are, to see how strong you are, to see how faithful you are, to see if you will be willing to do whatever he asks!

Brother Apostate

nvr,

The test you propose smacks of predestination at worst, predisposition at best.

Capable of?

If you're not capable, why would you be adversely judged?

Why would God expect from us what we're incapable of giving?

You are correct in pointing out my error, I overlooked how my meaning was unclear by using the word "capable", rather than "will".

I now correct my error, what I meant to state:

If God tests persons to determine who will obey Him and put Faith in Him, why is that dificult to understand?

I do not believe in predestination. As for predisposition, yes, we are disposed to err, "tis human to err", however, through trial and test we may strengthen our resolve and our faith if that is our goal.

As we overcome tests and trials, our faith in our ability to do so will continue to grow, enabling us to withstand greater and greater tests and trials in life.

BA

42

Is all religion in some way abusive?

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

i wish to thank writetoknow for prompting this question from his thread "hating religion is it bigotry?".

what has been your personal experience?.

consider the impressionable mind of the infant.. is it fair to indoctrinate them with dogma?.

Brother Apostate

Consider the impressionable mind of the infant.
Is it fair to indoctrinate them with dogma?

Dogma:

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.

2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.

3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.

4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Is it "dogma" to teach them that they must eat and drink what is healthy to remain healthy?

Is it "dogma" to teach them that they exercise to remain healthy and become healthier?

Is it "dogma" to teach them that they must read, observe, question, develop reasoning ability and knowledge in order to grow in wisdom?

Is it "dogma" to teach them that they must work in order to support themselves?

Is it "dogma" to teach them that they should avoid what is dangerous to their lives or other's lives, or their future?

Dogma, as a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle is unavoidable in teaching a child.

Then how or why is healthy religious instruction, or dogma, "unfair" or "abusive"?

Abuse is caused by an individual incorrectly believing what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right.

Abuse isn't unique among those proclaiming a religion.

Nor are care and kindness unique among those not doing so.

However, God has told us what is right and what is wrong in the Bible, it isn't up to us to determine that for ourselves, although we may learn that the hard way. And only healthy religion (true Christianity) teaches that through the Bible. The advantage of obeying God and teaching our children and others to do so is that we don't have to learn the hard way. True Christianity prevents abuse while encouraging and instilling kindness, care, and the other fruits of the spirit, which come from God, who is love, perfect love.

So, no, not all religion is potentially abusive, just false religion and non-religion.

BA- Avoid abuse, obey God by reading and learning from His word.

58

Why do bible thumpers have to immagine a God who test.

by jaguarbass in

jw
friends

i get this daily email from a bible thumping friend of mine this was part of todays topic.. sometimes we wonder, "why do we have to go through these trials & breakings, lord?

" well, there are some things the lord can't reveal to you in advance because you're not yet ready.

he's got to let you go through some testings without your even knowing what the future holds, to see if you can take it, to see how loyal you are, to see how strong you are, to see how faithful you are, to see if you will be willing to do whatever he asks!

Brother Apostate

Hmmm.

A test is required before it is known whether someone is capable of driving a vehicle and issuing them a license.

Many tests are required before someone is proven capable being an engineer, doctor, or attorney, etc.

If God tests persons to determine who is capable of obeying Him and putting Faith in Him, why is that dificult to understand?

Did not Adam, Eve, Satan, demons, etc fail the tests? By their actions, they willingly disobeyed God by not putting faith in Him and His instructions.

The consequences of their disobedience should be a warning to the wise.

BA- Answering the question.

PS- Obey God rather than men. It's the course of wisdom.

208

Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

this thread is inspired by a comment made on another thread, but i thought it would make an interesting discussion.. self deceit is described as a "misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it".

my premise is that faith is a form of self-deceit - lying to oneself.. so, i would ask of the "faithful" the following questions and would request that they be read carefully to ensure no that there is no misunderstanding of purpose.. 1) in what way is faith not self-deception?.

2) is a person who has faith in a god that you do not believe in, say for example siva, practicing a form of self-deception?.

Brother Apostate

BA,
Give it up. People do not read your posts in isolation and we all know where you are coming from. Your scriptual beliefs, as you have expressed them to date on this Board are entirely compatible with those of the WTS. I have previously asked you to allow us to read a comparison of which teachings of the WTS, for example their particular creationist dogma, you actually do not agree with. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.

My silence on the matter only shows that I don't currently feel inclined to write yet another dissertation on my beliefs. My disagreements with the WTBTS are very numerous and are my reason for leaving the jws. If my views were "entirely compatible" with them I would still be one of them. Should I at some future time and date be so inclined, I will put together a point by point list of my differences. For now they are scattered throughout threads on JWD.

All the views you have expressed both scriptually and in tandem with the points you make regarding "creation" are YEC teachings as are the WTS. The WTS differes in one regard, the length of the creative days. I suspect that even in this regard your dogma is in concert with theirs.

I have never, since leaving the jws, taken the stand that the earth is x years old. The creative days, in my opinion, were simply a period of time, however long. That makes my beliefs compatible with currently held science. Yet, my beliefs are not dogmatic (other than what is required for salvation) they are continually influenced by learning and re-evaluating the vast majority of my beliefs.

The majority of us have come from a WTS background religiously and are well aquainted with the process of self-deception when it comes to our religious "faith". That you have hardly strayed a yard from their teachings, and as I note we have numerous posts from you to evdience this, tells us all we need to know about you.

Yet another mischaracterization of my beliefs. Your absence of knowledge of my beliefs is not license to infer understanding by clairvoyance or other means.

So, how is your dogma and that of the WTS different when it comes to the interepretation of Genesis and the "creation" of man?

Perhaps I will write that up- it will be long, for sure. Feel free to bury yourself with mischaracterizations and lies in the mean time.

PS - Shouting by font is not indicative of a sound argument, or the existence of a thinking brain, it is bad netiquette. Why not can it?

I use a larger font on some posts because, once pasted in to the forum, my initial post has font so small that it would require a magnifying glass to read it. I then have to repeatedly re-format it. Sometimes the only way to get it right is to increase the font size. It's an issue with the forum that has sporadically occured, and has nothing to do with "netiquette". THIS IS SHOUTING. This is not shouting. Get it? Good.

BA- /un-hijack/

208

Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

this thread is inspired by a comment made on another thread, but i thought it would make an interesting discussion.. self deceit is described as a "misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it".

my premise is that faith is a form of self-deceit - lying to oneself.. so, i would ask of the "faithful" the following questions and would request that they be read carefully to ensure no that there is no misunderstanding of purpose.. 1) in what way is faith not self-deception?.

2) is a person who has faith in a god that you do not believe in, say for example siva, practicing a form of self-deception?.

Brother Apostate

Gravity will always be a fact, and so will evolution.

However often you repeat an error it does not become corrected by repetition. When you finally learn this your knowledge base will increase exponentially. Just for the record you are incorrect about this...again.

It is true that repeating the erroneous statement "evolution is a fact" does not make it a fact, no matter how many times it is repeated. Good observation!

Those that have been brave enough to answer the question BA and BurnTheShips have provided the following answers, both of which I am sure you will agree are logically flawed -HS:

I already answered this truthfully in my first reply on this thread, but it went over your head. The only truthful answer to the question is "time will tell" who has been decieved, by themselves or others, and who has been correct. -BA

"Logically flawed" how? Were not flat-earthers proven wrong with time? With the passage of time, the truth will be revealed. That is truth, not "logically flawed".

BA seems to be expecting a Biblical judgement day at which time this question will be answered. His faith is measured by his belief in the words of a book. No phenomenological objectivity neccessary. His faith can be measured against the statements in books. When they fail, as they have on numerous occasions, at that moment his faith becomes self-deceit. What he is not prepared to do is answer the question himself.

Where did I state that my faith is measured by my belief [only, implied] in the words of a book? Where did I state that no phenomenological objectivity is neccessary? When have the statements in the Bible "failed numerous times"? Because your belief in the interpretations didn't turn out as anticipated? Expect the same of your faith in the interpretation/theory known as "evolution". Your self-deceit will be revealed to all in due time. It has already been revealed to me- design requires a designer. That's enough for me to know you are decieving yourself.

Oh, come on already- theories are all about attempting to explain what we observe. But not all theories have equal weight and veracity- some are based on events that have been observed by humans as they occur, others are based on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans. And so we come to the real answer- evolutionists develop a theory, based primarily on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans, put faith in it, and self-decieve. This, in turn, emboldens atheists to ignore their creator and invent their own moral code.-BA

I have never seen a person be able to spawn so many logical fallacies in such short space (examples above), have them proved incorrect so often and still emerge with confidence intact.-HS

My statement contains "so many logical fallacies", really? Because you say so isn't enough. Point them out, since you've used the plural, point them out, self-deceiver.

HS is the one using logical fallacies, for example, this straw man of BA:

His faith is measured by his belief in the words of a book. No phenomenological objectivity neccessary. His faith can be measured against the statements in books. When they fail, as they have on numerous occasions, at that moment his faith becomes self-deceit. What he is not prepared to do is answer the question himself.

You continually put words in my mouth that I did not state, and assail them, as if I stated them. You create a straw man of my beliefs and statements.

You have called me a young earth creationist repeatedly, on other threads, which I am not. In this thread alone, you have continued to lie about and mischaracterize my beliefs. You have been proven a liar.

BA- Tells it like it is.

42

Disturbing news regarding Arctic Melting.

by sweetstuff in

jw
friends

i know, i know, someone is going to say, there is no proof that global warming is real, or that its man-made.

yeah, un-huh.

just like there is no proof that jw's teach lies.

Brother Apostate

I know, I know, someone is going to say, there is no proof that global warming is real, or that its man-made.

Wow, another Global Warming thread.

Global Warming is currently being observed. However, it has occured before.

Global Cooling is not currently being observed. However, it has occured before.

Mankind has little, if anything, to do with it.

It is natural cycle.

Therefore, mankind can do little, if anything, to prevent it.

Global Cooling may* eventually occur and reverse the Global Warming trend, as it has done before, but don't count on it anytime soon.

This has been beat to death before:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/130204/1.ashx

BA- Expect expansion of the tropics and the deserts. Perhaps the absence or near absence of ice on the poles and mountains (potential sea-level rise of 200+ feet should that occur). Prepare for coastal and low-lying flooding.

PS- Sell, don't buy, low-lying and coastal real-estate.

*- Perhaps this is the beginning of the fulfillment of these scriptures:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!" -2 Peter 3: 10-12

"The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory." -Revelation 16:8-9

208

Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

this thread is inspired by a comment made on another thread, but i thought it would make an interesting discussion.. self deceit is described as a "misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it".

my premise is that faith is a form of self-deceit - lying to oneself.. so, i would ask of the "faithful" the following questions and would request that they be read carefully to ensure no that there is no misunderstanding of purpose.. 1) in what way is faith not self-deception?.

2) is a person who has faith in a god that you do not believe in, say for example siva, practicing a form of self-deception?.

Brother Apostate

Gravity will always be a fact, and so will evolution.

Lol, evolution is a theory, not a fact, lol. It is but one explanation (i.e., theory) of the facts (fossil record, etc), albeit an erroneous one.

But I repeat myself.

An analogy, though not theological in nature its similarities are obvious. Three people see the same UFO. One concludes that it is a satellite gyrating in the upper atmosphere, the other that it is a craft from outer space come to warn the human race of a coming catastrophe, the last one that the object is an earthly military craft. Each of them is vehement in their conviction of what was seen. Apart from the fact that something was seen by all three we have three different subjective, not objective views of what was seen.
A UFO was seen, but no person has falsifiable evidence of what it was and so the subjective views give way to what the viewer feels is the next most logical explanation. The real answer to what this object was should be "I do not know". The self-deception comes in at the moment that appendages are hung on this event.

Oh, come on already- theories are all about attempting to explain what we observe. But not all theories have equal weight and veracity- some are based on events that have been observed by humans as they occur, others are based on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans. And so we come to the real answer- evolutionists develop a theory, based primarily on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans, put faith in it, and self-decieve. This, in turn, emboldens atheists to ignore their creator and invent their own moral code.

To believe that which is clearly designed does not require a designer is the ultimate in self-deception.

All humans put faith in something. The object of one's faith, whether faith in God or faith in men, is the deciding factor in our outlook and our conclusions.

In other words, "time will tell" who is deceiving themselves.

But I repeat myself.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen."- Hebrews 11:1

BA- Put faith in God, not men.

PS- May God have mercy.

19

Moderate Christians. How is it I love and despair of them at the same time?

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

recent exchanges with mouthy and renee on the forum and via pm have only reinforced my view that the majority of sincere christians are good, kind and loving human beings.

it's because i'm drawn to compassionate people that i also want to share with them the powerful and refreshing atheist outlook i've discovered over the past few years.

(goodness!

Brother Apostate

I think it's the kind of dead-headed belligerence shown by posters like BA and Greendawn that spoil what could otherwise be an open and informative debate between people of various perspectives.
Can Christians and Atheists debate without resorting to verbal slanging matches? Dunno, I may be as guilty as anyone else I guess but it's hard to be humble when you know your right!

Who's slinging mud? Look in the mirror.

BA

62

God and Evolution

by BurnTheShips in

during the second half of the nineteenth century, it became common to speak of a war between science and religion.

but over the course of the twentieth century, that hostility gradually subsided.

science should not try to become religion, nor should religion seek to take the place of science.

Brother Apostate

"As with [any] ideology, atheism can be part of a philosophy." It is not a philosophy.

It's the usual semantics war again.

Yes, what you state above can be taken as truthful, as can:

"As with any ideology, theism can be part of a philosophy." It is not a philosophy.

This is also true.

However, the basic acceptance of whether a God exists or not is one of, if not the basic building block of an individuals philosophy.

BA