thankyou! these quotes, especially in the first part, are GOLDEN! its really sad these things are burried as the years go by.
Posts by bohm
-
4Brilliant expose of WT deception. The 1874 change to1914 debacle.
by yesidid inmachislop, who is one of the least appreciated, but one of the most brilliant posters ever to grace this board,.
posted a three part expose of this great deception.
i post the url's below:.
-
-
-
148
"Remember, nobody can REALLY love you unless they know and love Jehovah first."
by AllTimeJeff in"unless they know and love jehovah first.
they love "jehovah".
they discuss how to make sure that though they are in charge, everyone doesn't see them, they see the great and powerful jehovah.... oh.
-
-
bohm
id like to add - "Let all things take place for the good of those who love father moon, and let all things be for the glorification of father moon, as we let father moon be found true, despite what anyone else may say to try to deflect from the credit and honour which father moon so rightly deserves."
Comeone spike. You gotta admit that to a moonie what i wrote above make exactly as much sence as what you wrote do. So just stating it wont really accomplish anything because it add no new knowledge to the thread. and quite frankly - if you read the father moon version, does such a mantra not sound a bit brainwashed? is that *really* the impression you want to give? (that was a rethorical question!) back on topic!
-
93
what is best evidence against noah's flood?......
by oompa inkeep it simple if possible........i like the ice core samples.........thanks, this was not my big issue but i may be able to use it.......oompa.
feel free to direct me to another thread btw...... or maybe i should read the second page of olins thread!.
-
-
bohm
purplesofa: well, the water canopy is about 150 years old i think and i doubt the person who proposed it really studied its effects. The thing is, that its the mass of the atmospheare that creates preassure. So if you add water to the atmosfeare, no matter how you do it, it increase its mass. That increase the preasure. If you add, say, 100 meters of water, it increase the preasure to that 100 meters below surface. normal air is toxic at that depth - if you have seen a program about deep sea diving you will know you got to put helium and all kinds of weird stuff into the air to make it breathable, and even then its not healthy.
About it raining - true. god has two options: change the physical characteristics of water without killing humans who rely on those characteristics. thats basically a continious miracle. so why would god do that, just to have the air filled with water? it makes no sence unless it was gods plan all along to kill all humans which raise new questions.
The other option (that will work!) is to increase the temparature. by increasing i dont mean 4 or 10 degrees celcius, but hundreds of degrees (it depends on the amount of water). Again people will die.
Thats why people suggest why the water in the canoby orbits the earth like sattelites. That has problems of its own - see my previous post a page or two back - but raise new problems - water in orbit contains a tremendeous amount of energy. that energy has to go somewhere. basically it would sterelize the atmospheare if a body of water like just the mediteranean see fell down, again see the post for the calculation, its just highschool stuff. (E = gmh, T = E /(c*m), m is mass, h is height above earth, E is energy, T is temperature (in kelvin), c is specific heat capacity, g is gravity acceleration on surface).
IF there is an astronomer here he may calculate what effect the tidal drag of the moon would have on a water canopy. it put a limit on how dense it can be, and properly rule out any kind of rigid structure (which can be ruled out to begin with because it will be destroyd pretty quickly by meteors anyway).
the water canopy is a perfect example of a explanation that raise far greater problems than the original problem, its sort of like explaining where your lost slipper is by inventing a slipper-hiding dwarf that lives under your bed. IT does, however, delute the argument, and gives proponents something to talk about, which some seem to confuse as proof....
-
93
what is best evidence against noah's flood?......
by oompa inkeep it simple if possible........i like the ice core samples.........thanks, this was not my big issue but i may be able to use it.......oompa.
feel free to direct me to another thread btw...... or maybe i should read the second page of olins thread!.
-
-
bohm
reniaa: about the stuff about time - well - what caused big bang and the mechanisms and conditions that were in effect before it ('before' is a strange concept to use about an event which science believe created time) is something that is pretty much guesswork right now. There does indeed seem to be plenty of room for a god there :-) . However, thats hardly 'rationalizing the impossible' - science does exactly say that we cannot know anything for sure about that event and therefore we cannot make certain claims! thats hardly rationalizing anything impossible, unless you say that big bang was impossible or i completely misunderstood you?
-
93
what is best evidence against noah's flood?......
by oompa inkeep it simple if possible........i like the ice core samples.........thanks, this was not my big issue but i may be able to use it.......oompa.
feel free to direct me to another thread btw...... or maybe i should read the second page of olins thread!.
-
-
bohm
Reniaa: I have a single question that i very much hope you will answer because its something i am trying to understand in people around me.
You seem to be a quite educated person, and i am sure you have done a lot of study in the past years on this an other topics. But obviously - to be educated on a subject in order to debate it means you must know the arguments for and against - would you consider a mormon who had only read mormon litterature sufficiently educated in biblical matters to take the right descision with regards to his faith?
So my question is this: Do you consider yourself educated on the arguments *against* the global flood? The arguments against the flood are scientific - how have you educated yourself on this topic? What books or texts have you studied? I am not asking if you accept the arguments you found, well, i know you didnt and thats okay and besides the point, i am simply interested in how you arrived at your conclusions :-).
Personally, if i were to answer that question, i have educated myself on arguments against the flood by reading creationist websites, a couple of creationist books, all books puplished by wt which touch the subjects and numerous articles on the cdrom (simply by searching on dna, dating methods, carbon 14, flood, etc. and reading what popped up).
ps.
The calculation i presented on the other page showed that de-orbiting a water canopy would raise the temparature of the atmosfeare well over ignition point. Were you aware of this, and are you aware of any mechanisms for removing that amount of heat before it sterelized the earth? (i ask you this not to make you 'stumble', but to educate myself as to not propegate falsehood)
-
18
Unique vernacular and nomenclature of Jw's.
by AK - Jeff inboth robert lifton and steve hassan list the use of 'loaded language' as a key element of cults.
every cult has terminologies that are unique to itself, and often the intent is to polarize the membership into a black and white language style.
the cliches of cultish groups tend to stop thought, or restrict into a a single accepted viewpoint.. this is almost never recognized by the members while they are trapped inside - but is clearly evident the effects this had upon us once we exit the religion.
-
-
bohm
i read about the loaded language technique a while back and in case of a person who does not believe that "loading the language" is dangerous or questionable, one could draw attention to the cult which help simon foot the bill by serving banners with hot chicks, namely scientology (you gotta admit that having one of the most fucked-up cults partially fund a site which is very much about cult-awareness is pretty hearthwarming ;-) ).
I read scientologists has a much more reworked vocabolary compared to the jw's; they are somewhat aware of it and it helps them to identify how far 'in' a given person is. it also make it almost impossible for an outsider to pass for a scientologist in a conversation (much more than with a jw). more troubeling, they have begun to give courses where the candidate is given clay (yes) and nothing else, and then need to spend hours to 'create' words and emotions out of the clay - this goes on and on and the result is some pretty fundamental changes to how that person thinks. read more here:
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/s/scientology/pignotti/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-08.html
-
93
what is best evidence against noah's flood?......
by oompa inkeep it simple if possible........i like the ice core samples.........thanks, this was not my big issue but i may be able to use it.......oompa.
feel free to direct me to another thread btw...... or maybe i should read the second page of olins thread!.
-
-
bohm
well there are issues everywhere... begin by reading the posts about the flood here: http://corior.blogspot.com/ (especially the parts about the gilgamesh epic) and then http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (also read talkorigins 29 proofs for macroevolution while your at it).
Since it seem that faith has nothing to do about proof you might as well have a bit of fun, so you could ask who on the ark had syphilis, polio, gonorreah and a gazillion other diseases that only humans can have. it raise the interesting question how the worlds 8 most virtous people would carry multiple sexual diseases. And when you factor in that some of these have a limited lifespan so they would have to jump around different members of the crew things become interesting... this, ofcourse, also hold for the other animals. Bird flue in a giant floating bird-cage without the option to isolate sick birds, what fun!
The only answer i have got is that "they originated spontaniously". Oh, so its impossible that life arose over a billion years on earth, but a range of fully functioning modern vira can spring into existance in a mere thousand years or so? its difficult to answer that without contradicting yourself (sometimes you get the automatic response that they could have caught the diseases from corpses. forgetting the fact that few if any diseases survive in a year-dead corpse, it does raise the question of what vector will give you a STD from a corpse! ;-)
It seem that most jws trust the water canopy theory and use it for a lot, like how the water came to earth and why carbon 14 is misleading. Here is a fun calculation you might walk someone through (only requires highschool math and physics):
The idea with the water canopy theory is that a large quantity of water is around the earth and block out radiation from space in such a way that AllIllogicalThingsWork(TM). the average show of spongebobsquarepants is more physically sound than this, but nevermind that for a moment.
First is the question of how the water is held up. The idea that the water is held up as vapour in the air is abselutely redicilous (which i think every jw willl agree with) since in terms of atmosphearic preassure, it does not matter if you walk around on the bottom of a 1km deep ocean, or on the bottom of a 1km ocean with a little air mixed into it (which is the case if the water was suspended as vapour). The pressure is the same, and if a human has to just dive to 200 meters depth it takes a lot of special equipment since normal air is toxic at that depth and will generally ruin your day. besides, to keep all of that water as vapour, you have to keep it very hot. think hundreds of degree celcius.
So even proponents of the water canopy theory will see that having everybody at noahs day being boiled and suffocated at the same time as a bad thing, and what is proposed instead is that the water is actually in orbit around the earth as ice. This is certainly possible (allthough it would orbit earth a a belt like the rings of saturn, not actually doing much good in terms of blocking out the sun, but nevermind), however there are still certain problems.
The grand moral of physics seems to be that God is kind of a cheapass in terms of energy. Energy cannot be created from nothing, energy cannot be removed. It seems that however god designed this universe, it was paramont of him to preserve energy, and finding an experiment where energy is not concerved is something that would give you the nobel prize in no time. What does that have to do with the ark? Well, highscool physics teach that it takes an energy E to move a block with mass m a height h up into the air where
E = m h g (g being the gravitational constant, which is approximately 10 m/s^2
Now, if that block was to fall down again, the energy would have to go somewhere (remember that god is a cheapskate) and unless one construct a device to store it it will be converted to heat. This is what happends when a spacecraft lands on earth: Because its a great hight above earth it has a lot of energy, and that energy has to go somewhere. The great bulk of it actually goes into the atmosfeare, and it become so hot that it litterally glows around the spacecraft. Now back to the water - lets try to put this into context. The energy required to raise the temperature of water one degree kelvin (or celcius) is about 4000 joules per kilogram. How high up would the canopy have to be? Lets just say 400 km for argument sake - this is really a minimum, since the atmosfeare extends quite high above the earth and cause a drag, which in turn slows down things in orbit and cause them to crash down.
Now, lets say that 1 kg water falls from a height of 400 km. It would aquire an energy of
E = 1 * 400*1000 * 10 = 4*000*000 (joule).
If all that energy went into the water, it would raise the temperature of it to 1000 degree celcius. Water boils at 100.wood burns at 300.
So if one were to deorbit the entire atlantic ocean, it would be superheated. The atmosfeare wont be of much use - air is a pretty poor medium for storing energy so it, to, would be scorching warm. There is simply no physically sound way to fix this - you either require a miracle (and in that case, every theory, no matter how bonkers it is, can be supported) or accept that earth got the big trip to a disinfection station. And saying that "some of the water came from the earth" is a pretty poor way to fix it, since you dont have to go far down in the earth to find really high temperatures to (there is no such thing as a cold geyser).
* Gravity is not uniform but degrees the further you come from the center of the earth. The relationship is 1/r^2, so with 400km thats about 11% the calculations are off on that count, and to get better results one should also factor in the kinetic energy (Which would increase the temparature) and that the specific heat of water depends on temperature and other stuff. this does not change the conclusion.
-
43
Where did the Watchtower Org learn its Mind Control techniques ?
by wobble inthis is a little where and when, i am not widely read in chuck russells stuff or rutherfords,the former is quite looney and the latter makes me want to up-chuck.. but i get the impression, i must admit more from isolated quotes rather than proper reading, that chuck hardly used mind-control,apart from trying to convince that his strange interpretation of scripture was correct,and even rutherford didn't use it so much,although the signs are there.. so when,and where from ,did they learn the mind control methods they use,that are so similar to all the other cults, is there a college course being run somewhere on how to build and control your own cult?.
and do the g.b take extra lessons in it, and pass them on to all members of the writing committee?
and then down the ranks,the d.os and c.os certainly use it,and i don't believe it is un-consciously,they are taught.. any ideas ?
-
-
bohm
im with leavingwt... When you look at rutherfords (and the rest of the stuff that come out of the slave) "intelligence" and "competence" are not the words that jump forth. Its actually quite depressive that the slave has picked up and created almost all the poor habbits all on its own in a process that, to me, looks like a bunch of people who keep trying to "manage" problems instead of solving them (since the mindset of the organization does not allow that). Captives of a concept indeed.
To those who are interested in the early history, i would stronly suggest the first couple of chapters of "Apocalypse delayed".
-
23
2009 "Keep On The Watch" is a milestone convention like Cedar Point- not!
by JimmyPage inmy dad hasn't been to the convention yet but he is very excited to go.
he has been told by a friend of his who went that it is a milestone convention like cedar point, ohio and that after this, nothing will be the same again.. from what i know he is in for a disappointment.
i think they could safely call this year's assembly theme "much ado about nothing"!.
-
-
bohm
darn... 2009 was the first convention i ever went to. if this was an EXCITING convention with lots of content, i hate to see a booring one! seriously, most of the half-hour talks could be (extensively) summerized on the back of a postcard. the gazillionth time the speaker said: "we can illustrate this with a picture" i felt like screaming: "OR YOU COULD ALSO SAY IT IN A SINGLE, SIMPLE SENTENCE AND SAVE US ALL 15 MINUTES!"
-
47
WTS causing more anguish
by GapingMouth ini don't really know where to start on my first post; i feel i have so much to say and yet i am so emotionally tired that it is hard to go through it all again in my head.
but, i do need support and advice and so i will make the effort.. i started having doubts about certain beliefs of the witnesses about 2 years ago and did research since that i now come to the belief there is no god, and witnesses definitely are a cult.. at first it bothered me more on the god issue, but now i am more bothered by the cult issue, mainly because it dictates my life even though i am aware of it.. when i was a child, my mother and father divorced and my mother told me i will live with my father because she was going to die at armageddon being a non witness.
i think, as well as many other pressures i cant list for fear of a very long post, this was the main pressure that made me get baptized even though i wasn't that happy being a witness.
-
-
bohm
GapingMouth: Welcome to the board! i dont have a lot of add in terms of wisdom - i think mr. flipper said it best. You may want to look up old posts about why they are here/out of the watchtower, that gave me a lot of understanding. Notice this is a board that attract many different people, there are even a couple of (semi)-jws who are so nice as to remind us about what the watchtower can do to a persons abilities to reason.
About the atheist debate - dont want to add to this treath, just want to state my oppinion: I also found dawkins book and presentations on google video immensely interesting, but so far the logic about what he says has seemed pretty airtight to me. perhaps except the bit about child abuse and religion - i think its propeganda to use that word. thats just my oppion.
Take care!
ps
dont appolegize! the longer your post is, the more you give to us to learn from :-)