i'm happy for this jw couple, but here is my question.
jw's believe that it is wrong to store blood because of the scriptural command to 'pour it upon the ground'.
this, it is said, is because blood represents life which is sacred.. surely in an even more obvious and intimate way, a womans eggs represent life.
I think your answer is right here:
"We believe for religious reasons that life starts from conception so we were not prepared to destroy what would be a life in that way," Mr Perry said.
so, believing that life starts from conception, neither unfertilised eggs nor sperm can be thus viewed as 'life' from their standpoint.
Greven
", the man asked.
the man asked, "suppose i decided to become one of jehovah's witnesses.
"no, that's not a part of the vow.
Nice format! It's written in a very disarming, honest way. I'll save it for my files.
Greven
any men above the ground?
could men below the ground (i.e.
written almost 900 years after the time of moses, and about 400
1) No God
2) A God who doesn't intervene in human affairs
3) A God who does intervene in human affairs
or,
4) Everything we believe to be real isn't real at all, just some sort of a "movie" we've created for ourselves and our enjoyment.
Take yer pick!
Since the existence of God is an extraordinairy claim position number 1 would (nay: should) be our default position. Positions 2 and 3 require sufficient proof in order to sway us out of position one. 'Proof' could be evidence or logical argumentation that makes the position argued for more probable than the other ones. Since I haven't encountered any evidence for a God in any form, I'm still in gear 1 so to speak. I won't touch upon position 4.
Greven
any men above the ground?
could men below the ground (i.e.
written almost 900 years after the time of moses, and about 400
Good stuff Farkel!
My personal favourite anachronism is the spinning sword guarding the entrance to the garden of Eden.
Now what would a weapon of war do in a time when there were just two people?
It also suggests that God is the inventor of the first weapon of war...
Greven
ps. did Paine make a Deist out of you or were there other reasons? I ask this because I found his case against the Bible as the word of God strong, yet his case for Deism rather weak...
hi, this was on the front page of the opinion section of the la times yesterday (sunday).
it's pretty interesting how religion could use some examination--even the us religions.
i highlighted parts and also put a phrase in red.
Robdar,
you stated:
The Muslim considers all 3 religions to be "sisters of the book". Muslims are not our enemies. It's the fundamental Muslim that is waging Jihadagainst everybody-- including other Muslims.
however read these texts again:
4:14 And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.
4:56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.
Note that to be acceptable to Allah, these texts state that it is necessary to obey both Allah and his messenger, Muhammed. 'Our revelations' and Muhammed are not recognized by both Christians and Jews. So these texts can be used to count Jews and Christians among the enemies, worthy of destruction. True illuminated Muslims will not use these texts as such but it is in the Koran, just as certain passages fro the Bible can be used as such.
Greven
my mother said 'if you can't say anything good about anyone (thing), don't say anything bad'!.
true?
a lot would need to change in our comments and attitudes, surely.. false?
'if you can't say anything good about anyone (thing), don't say anything bad'
Ask her is this priciple also applies to Satan / Adolf Hitler / The Catholic Church / Apostates etc etc. If not why not?
Seriously, if my car is a piece of shit I will call it that. That I can't say anything good about it is even more reason --not less-- to say so.
Greven
i am trying to find a good book which would explain why the bible cannot be inspired by god.. (for example, a book that would dissert the bible and illustrate its contradictions, etc.
i know there are lots of those out there, but which one did you enjoy reading?.
indoubt
I would go with Mulans suggestion, The Age of Reason. Another good thing about it's age is that it no longer holds copyright, and is therefore public domain: you can download the entire piece free from the net. Google for it!
Greven
it would be absurd for god to give mankind a book or books which explain what god expects of us.
unless god at all times remained personally responsible for making sure his "book for all mankind" remained in its pure, original form, it would end up being currupted.
as time passes, language evolves.
Farkel,
Your piece echos the prime reasons cited by Thomas Paine (in his Age of Reason) why he couldn't accept the bible as the word of God. In fact he states that if it is inspired then surely, it must have been by a demon. Anyway, you put his words into a modern, easy to read and well argued form. Kudos for that! TP is one of my heroes...
Greven
hi, this was on the front page of the opinion section of the la times yesterday (sunday).
it's pretty interesting how religion could use some examination--even the us religions.
i highlighted parts and also put a phrase in red.
Robdar,
The Koran might not consider Jews or Christians infidels, it is not very friendly towards them either:
2:61 (the cow) And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them [jews] and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.
2: 62 Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
2: 96 And thou wilt find them [jews] greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.
And 'infidels' does not only mean Atheists either:
2: 257 Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities . They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.
some texts (3:85; 4:14; 4:56) do give the impression that only Muslims will be acceptable to Allah, contradicting 2:62 above:
3: 85 And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.
4:14 And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.
4:56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.
As is rather clear the Koran is like the Bible: full of contradictions, however one thing is sure: the Muslim considers himself to be in possession of the only truth and all those that oppose this truth awaits death, either directly by Allah, or by his servants in Holy War (Jihad). Participating in waging Holy War against the infidels is not voluntary, according to the Koran but a sacred duty.
Greven
i've just noticed how the wts put two phoney "interpretations" of "strangers"tm derived from john 10:5 - next to each other in the same article in watchtower september 1, 2004, probably hoping that the average jw will merge them together and treat apostasy as something as disgusting as paedophilia.
image 1:.
paragraph 12"similarly today strangers try to persuade you youths that your christian parents unduly restrict your freedom.
Again do you note the trait typical of strangers? They hide who they are - just as Satan hid his identity by using a serpent. Today, some immoral people hide their identity and true intentions by using the Internet.
What strikes me too is the fact that 'hiding who you are' is a trait typical of a 'stranger' according to their definition. They use the fact that people on the internet use Avatars and made up names to suggest an immoral or subvertive motive. But doesn't this apply to them as well? They publish anonymously! Do you know the identity of the author of a particular WT article? Are the names of WT writers known to the public? When they quote do they reveal it's source? How many JW's know the names of the GB?
Basically the Watchtower-Society is a made-up name and they use the image of organisation as Avatar. When you write a letter to the society, the person that answers the letter does not reveal his name (only an id code). Neither are the writers of the published material known to the public, they are kept secret. So do they not hide who they are? Do they not hide their true intentions? Are they thereby not 'strangers' according to their own definition? And should we therefor not sit down with them?
Greven
