Posts by Awakened07

31

We are all decended from Eve

by Sasha in

did anyone see that show where they have traced the dna of the whole world back to eve??????

?

Awakened07

All of the above assumes the Bible accurately describes literal history of course.
That is my presupposition in discussing all things Biblical.

That's how faith works, isn't it.

One presupposes that the Bible (for instance) is correct. One concludes beforehand that it is the word of God. Any evidence that may run contrary to the Bible is thereafter discarded, because it goes against the word of God(!). One keeps any evidence (or speculation) that it may be correct. One has faith (and is proud of it) in the Bible based on this.

This reminds me of this statement that I happened to stumble upon when researching creationist material:

http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

Dinosaur Extinction: The TheoryDinosaur Extinction is a recent phenomenon. Many of the great sea and land monsters went extinct in a global flood about 4400 years ago. Some of these creatures survived and inhabited earth with man, until they too went extinct as man killed them for sport, safety, and expansion (like black bears in Florida and bison in the Western U.S.). We know this theory is revolutionary to many! However, we must admit – it’s not original. In fact, the theory isn’t really a “scientific” theory at all. It’s based on the established truth of the Biblical record – a record that’s not dependant on mankind’s ever-changing view of science and reason. We absolutely encourage you to carefully examine the evidence for yourself!

(btw, I've researched their 'evidence', and it's half truths, lies, refuted research etc.)

-This is not meant as an attack on snowbird, but her statement reminded me of this.

21

June 3-08 #4 Talk - Evolution - A Scientific Dilemma

by still_in74 in

okay, so i have this talk tonight and i forgot all about it.

anyone on here have this talk and can post it here for me??????????.

or if you feel inclined you can write it for me!

Awakened07

According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

The ". . ." are red flags. These kinds of quotes, which are taken out of context, are not about evolutionists saying that they don't accept evolution(!!), but rather that they, or some other 'clique' in science, are against a certain understanding of the mechanism or process behind evolution.

This particular quote is, as far as I have found, attributed to Michael Ruse, who is a professor of philosophy and I think have specialized on things like social Darwinism in that respect, but he's not a biologist. Still, when you take a look at what he still believes - to this day, 27 years after the quote - there is nothing that points to him not accepting evolution. Quite the contrary, when you read this interview for instance. And even if it turns out the quote is not from him after all, it's utterly ridiculous to assert that evolutionists would argue that evolution has not occurred, or is not a scientific theory.

The words "Darwinian evolutionary theory" in the quote are probably key here; this was most likely about the debate surrounding 'punctuated equilibrium', which did and does counter Darwin's own idea of a steady, crawling pace of evolution. But debating the mechanism and process is not the same as denying that it has occurred.

19

Can genesis be reconciled with science?

by inkling in

jw
friends

ok, so a recent thread about the latest wt antiscience content (found here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/159423/1.ashx).

has got me thinking.... it does seem really hard to hold active trust in the bible as the word of.

god without being leery of science.

Awakened07

Allegory or not, the correct order of events should not be wrong. I guess it could be said that over time, the order got mixed up as the story was told orally around the camp fires before it was written down, but I thought God protected His Word? If this got mixed up somehow, how can we trust the rest of it? If it's an allegory that further got mixed up, what's the point of "printing" it in God's message to us? What did we gain in knowledge about the origins? Why not let the holy spirit slap the writers and copyists upside the head and say "No, no, no, no - this is what it's supposed to say." ?

19

Can genesis be reconciled with science?

by inkling in

jw
friends

ok, so a recent thread about the latest wt antiscience content (found here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/159423/1.ashx).

has got me thinking.... it does seem really hard to hold active trust in the bible as the word of.

god without being leery of science.

Awakened07

Yeah, but you see it's in the Bible, which is the word of God because it says so, and therefore it outranks science.

You gotta try keeping up here...

29

Cycles of Armageddon Hysteria

by Jeremy C in

when i departed the organization in early 2006, i was giving some serious thought as to why jehovahs witnesses were going through a period of heightened expectation of armageddon.

the district convention theme for 2006 was "deliverance at hand", and it was announced by the governing body that a stinging message would be carried out against "false religion" in the fall through a tract campaign.

certainly throughout the organizations history, convention talks and watchtower publications have always used manipulative tactics in urging a sense of urgency; even in times of relative peace.

Awakened07

Very well written and thought-out post, Jeremy (belated welcome, BTW).

It really is 'battered wife syndrome' when you think about it:

Blaming themselves and being blamed by the 'spouse' (WBTS), told there's no where else to go, told they'd have no hope and be nothing without the 'spouse', etc. etc. It's never the org's fault, or even if it is in a few instances, the org. is defended by saying they are fallible men, and that Jehovah is still not at fault. They become apathetic and 'empty headed', waiting on every word from the spouse, trying their best not to upset 'him', even though what was previously a 'truth' can suddenly with the wave of a hand become damnable by death if you don't comply with the new 'truth' at once. They have to walk on egg shells around each other, so as to not upset the 'spouse' by saying something slightly contrary to what 'he' thinks and suffer the consequences.

Let's see if they'll in the end turn on their own 'spouse', like some battered women do.

44

(How) Does Truth Set Free?

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

"the truth shall set you free" (cf.

john 8:32) is the kind of sentence that potentially transcends any contextual setting.

as we know only too well, it has been used over and over again in religious propaganda and is very easy to return against it (i.e.

Awakened07

Depends on what 'truth' is. It's pretty obvious that 'truth' is what is. What truly is objectively real, and correct. The problem is that all kinds of ideas and interpretations are said to be 'the truth' (we know all about that...).

Jesus' 'truth' set (some) Jews free from the strict and to-the-letter rules and laws of Judaism. So, yes - it set them free. A little strange, come to think of it, since that 'old truth' also allegedly originated with God (who is the same Jesus).

Anyway - it's a universal truth(!) that actual truth sets you free from previous misconceptions. But, as Pilate said: "What is truth?".

7

Hits the nail on the head

by moomanchu in

thought i'd share this chart from the life applicaton study bible.

salvation through faith.

religon by self-effort salvation by faith.

Awakened07

Both sides will argue their views with the same conviction, citing their own set of scriptures.

Logically, either one side will get salvation at the expense of the other, or another religion (or Christian view) will attain salvation at the expense of them both. Or absolutely none will, because there is no salvation.

Or perhaps they (we) all will, because there is a God and he/she/it/they don't really care about such trivial beliefs. So little so, in fact, that he/she/it/they haven't yet bothered to 'come down' and correct our mutually exclusive, mutually errant views.

24

Do you feel smarter than the dubs still inside?

by Samuel Thorsen in

jw
friends

i do .

am i wrong?

.

Awakened07

I'm not smarter (well, not overall anyway), but better informed, and free to actually get informed.

23

Remarkably Blatant Antiscience Statements in This Week's WT Study

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

is there still enough room for scientists in the wt?.

16. do we hear valueless things being uttered today?

for example, some scientists say that evolutionary theory and scientific discoveries in other fields demonstrate that there is no longer any need to believe in god, that everything can be explained by natural processes.

Awakened07

Fast forward to the 0:56 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M

-Sound familiar?

Now fast forward to the 7:45 mark (same video).

-Sound familiar?

10

The God You Love - Bllsht

by Black Man in

jw
friends

these 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: the three kings.the three kings and the brightest star, sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on december 25th.

this is also called the "great year," and ancient societies were very aware of this.

the reality is that the golden bull is taurus the bull, and moses represents the new age of aries the ram.

Awakened07

Aargh, Zeitgeist again... I agree with Galileo. I mean - this movie (the religion part) could have been done well, perhaps should be done properly; there's lots of stuff to dig up in its vein, but I can't support it as it is.

There are numerous threads on it here.