Posts by BarefootServant

Not sure if anyone has explained why the British press jumped on this - In a discussion, Dawkins (mockingly I presume) used a survey which showed that most British 'Christians' could not even name the first book of the new testament. In response, the Archbishop (I think it was) asked Dawkins for the full title of Origin of Species - ouch! he couldn't remember it, and that's when 'oh God' came out. A double whammy.

Personally, I find Dawkins comes across as arrogant and militantly anti religion. He clearly believes that anyone who believes in God is either ignorant or stupid, and sometimes, when he's not in charm mode, he says so out loud. You can call that honest, but disrespectfully trampling on the fond beliefs of millions is bound to get him into a little trouble.

36

The seven trumpet blasts of Revelation & the Millions campaign.

by transhuman68 in

jw
friends

one of the jehovahs witness doctrines that many of us have had trouble believing is that the seven angels trumpet blasts described in revelation applied to events that occurred in the 1920s at seven assemblies held around the world at the time when judge rutherford was the president of the watchtower society.. the revelation climax book (1988) contains this summary on page 173:.

highlights of jehovah's trumpetlike judgment proclamations.

1922 cedar point, ohio: a challenge to christendom's leaders in religion, politics, and big business to justify their failure to bring peace, prosperity, and happiness.

BarefootServant

Hey, don't knock the Revelation book - studying it for the third time so weakened my trust in the organisation that I started to question the whole thing. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who thinks the WTS understands bible prophecy.

21

Critique of the October 1 Watchtower article"When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?"

by Doug Mason in

my critique of the october 1, 2011 watchtower article "when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?

http://www.jwstudies.com/critique_of_when_was_ancient_jerusalem_destroyed.pdf .

i am looking forward to hearing of correction or omissions.. please note that this is a large file (almost 7 meg) which takes a while to download and a while to format in a web browser.. the design of the critique allows a single major topic to be individually printed, so that those pages may be handed to an apologist for the watchtower society.

BarefootServant

Hi Doug, just wanted to add my own appreciation, thanks.

46

An atheist and a creationist are walking along a riverbank . . . .

by nicolaou in

the course of this river has obviously been designed, it's avoiding every single tree on the riverbank!.

creationist: are you trying to tell me that all those plants know where the riverbank is?.

atheist: no one designed the river!

BarefootServant

Behe is an old earth creationist / devout christian with an agenda, i wouldn't want to waste my time reading anything that guy writes. Especially not after some of the shit i've seen him come out with in interviews. My wobbly platform gives me a pretty good view of his lack of integrity.

PsychoP, I'd really like to hate professor Behe as much as you do, if it's not too much trouble is there any chance of you providing just one example of his lack of integrity? Thanks.

46

An atheist and a creationist are walking along a riverbank . . . .

by nicolaou in

the course of this river has obviously been designed, it's avoiding every single tree on the riverbank!.

creationist: are you trying to tell me that all those plants know where the riverbank is?.

atheist: no one designed the river!

BarefootServant

Villabolo, personally I reckon the Greeks nicked all their best ideas from the Egyptians (who certainly beat them to the earth being round). But I never claimed the knowledge in Ecclesiastes must have come from God, just that the observation is about cycles, and remarkable for its time. I agree though, as I intimated, I think the writer was speaking in the context of his time.

46

An atheist and a creationist are walking along a riverbank . . . .

by nicolaou in

the course of this river has obviously been designed, it's avoiding every single tree on the riverbank!.

creationist: are you trying to tell me that all those plants know where the riverbank is?.

atheist: no one designed the river!

BarefootServant

Psycho Parrot, from that comment I take it you have never actually read anything by Michael Behe? Meaning you are unencumbered by a first hand knowledge of his scientific argument and have only read what others have written about him? From this wobbly platform you suggest I should limit my freedom of speech? Er, no. When you can come here and demonstrate with your own evidence why Behe is the devil incarnate and his books are an anathema to science and dangerous contaminant to rational thought... well, even then I reserve the right to give an opinion if I think a parable is self-serving and loaded.

46

An atheist and a creationist are walking along a riverbank . . . .

by nicolaou in

the course of this river has obviously been designed, it's avoiding every single tree on the riverbank!.

creationist: are you trying to tell me that all those plants know where the riverbank is?.

atheist: no one designed the river!

BarefootServant

The riverbank story is entertaining enough, but of course is completely biased against the poor old creationist, since it is an observable and experimentally verifiable fact that rivers will and do go wherever they want to, (apparently) randomly, and that plants will survive wherever they are able. Nobody (not even a creationist) denies that processes that obey natural laws can have the appearance of design. The problem with this little parable is that it is loaded such that the creationist is, ipso facto, ignorant, and so it contributes little to the debate about origins other than to make a long-winded ad homini claim that anyone that disagrees with the current consensus is an idiot. Anyone that has read such books as Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution will know that this is not the case, at least not for all those contending that the current theories about origins are completely inadequate.

46

An atheist and a creationist are walking along a riverbank . . . .

by nicolaou in

the course of this river has obviously been designed, it's avoiding every single tree on the riverbank!.

creationist: are you trying to tell me that all those plants know where the riverbank is?.

atheist: no one designed the river!

BarefootServant

Dr JohnStMark,

on the scripture at Eccl 1:7, I tend to agree the WT overplays its hand somewhat, and we can presume that the writer did not understand exactly how the water 'cycle' worked - but it's a little unfair to say that there is no mention of a cycle:

5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

The whole context of these verses is about natural cycles - the solar cycle, the cycling winds, and the water cycle; that somehow the water that streams into the sea eventually returns to the streams again. These are scientifically accurate observations, and at the very least demonstrates remarkable insight, for the time.