Posts by Half a Person

26

Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?

by Half a Person in

i have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.

its usually something along the lines of:.

our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?

Half a Person

@DeputyDog

It might seem that way to you, but, God is in control and knows exactly who will be hurt, killed in any disaster. He is also responsible for every survivor. I don't believe ANYTHING is arbtrary.

Whoa, sorry I but I can’t believe that. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but there’s no way I could watch the news, see a disaster and say “They had it coming to them.”

We do deserve to die.

We are all *going* to die, unfortunately, which is something I had to accept (with difficulty) when I rejected the JW belief system. But believing that we *deserve* to die sounds exactly like the sort of thing that would destroy a person’s self-esteem. I know I always felt guilty as a JW because I could never meet their (impossibly high?) standards. I felt like I deserved to die, and I think that this belief suppressed me - rather than helping me - as a person.

@glenster

the cows that moo twice are killing the cows that moo once

Yeah I think war is stupid as well.

A lot of them are anti-rancher.

Hm. Are these by any chance Evil Atheist Cows? Because my position isn’t that I *hate* [the] God [of the bible], rather it’s that I don’t think he exists. Let’s say the cows never saw the rancher. Ever. Do you think it would be fair of them to assume that there was no rancher?

A cow might look at all the hardships and say life sucks, and another cow might see all the same things yet be glad for their shot at life and what good they found in it.

But I don’t think the outlook of the “glass half empty” vs “glass half full” cows has anything to do with whether they believe in the (as yet unseen) rancher. They might just be optimistic or pessimistic cows.

There's no credible concept of an all-beneficent rancher (or cows or ranch) or that choice wouldn't exist.

Are you saying that if life wasn’t filled with suffering, then all of the cows would be optimistic? That’s a good thing, isn’t it though? I’d rather have a field of happy, problem-free cows than a bovine bloodbath.

a son from the rancher's dysfunctional family who's…presiding over those who decide life sucks and to forget the rancher.

But for some people, life does suck. What’s wrong with acknowledging that? Why does it have to be likened to pledging allegiance to Satan? (I hope I’m understanding your illustration properly here). Some people (I assume) acknowledge that life sucks, but just get on with it. Again, the sort of language you’re using: “anti-racher”, “forget the rancher”, suggests that anyone who isn’t worshipping [the Christian] God is consciously and deliberately working against him, whereas in reality they probably don’t give “him” a second thought.

26

Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?

by Half a Person in

i have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.

its usually something along the lines of:.

our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?

Half a Person

@Sad emo

Why is that avoiding the question? Lets face it - whether you have a belief in God or not, there ARE situations which we CAN sort out ourselves.

From my personal (atheist) perspective, I’d have to say that “sorting out situations ourselves” is actually the ONLY answer, since God isn’t going to come along and do it for us. I think it’s great when people try to do something about the suffering they see in the world. (Note to self: must stop being a hypocrite and donate some money to charity)

But the reason I think this is “avoiding the question” is because it focuses on what *we can do*, rather than on what God is (or isn’t) doing.

will you be a better person or a bitter person?

I think this is a brilliant attitude to have. To view problems as something to defeat rather than something to be defeated by. So I suppose, yes, the problems in your life give you the potential to become a stronger person.

But again, this is more about how best to view/react to problems, rather than explaining why they exist in the first place.

On the subject of earthquakes and other natural disasters, perhaps your thinking is still clouded with the JW idea that God created everything PERFECT. Truth is, the Bible does not say that - it says that He created it VERY GOOD - it was made how He intended, 'perfectly flawed' if you like.

Would it be blasphemous to suggest that he could have done a better job? Perhaps he could have created some sort of warning light/siren system to alert us to when a natural disaster was about to happen. Maybe he could have made the thunder come *before* the lightning, so that if you heard a loud bang, you at least had time to run away from the sound, before you got hit by lightning. And maybe teeth could have been designed a bit better, somehow.

Sorry, I don't understand your line of reasoning here! Did you mean we should expect God to heal terminal illness because it wasn't someones intention to be ill?

I probably didn’t explain myself very well. What I was trying to say was:

* God has intervened in the past (the flood, etc.)

* But, in general, he keeps out of human affairs because he wants humans to exercise their free will. So he doesn’t generally *force* them to act in a certain way, but allows them the choice of whether to serve him or not.

* So God’s non-intervention could be because he gives human the freedom to act, and also face the consequences (good or bad) of their actions.

But my point was that some diseases are NOT the result of a person’s life choices, so why doesn’t God intervene to stop them? I mean, if a person smokes every day and then ends up with lung problems, it’s cause-and-effect, fair enough. But if a person is born with some sort of terrible condition, then it’s hardly their fault. So why doesn’t God intervene to stop this kind of unfair suffering?

I saw something in their lives that I don't always see in 'healthy' people - they had peace, joy, dignity, love, they had risen above the human cesspit.

Again, this explains a dignified, laudable reaction to a terrible affliction, but sadly doesn’t explain the reason why the affliction exists in the first place.

[Satan] often he gets TOO MUCH credit for bad stuff that was nothing to do with him!

I totally agree with this, mainly because I don’t think Satan even exists at all! But I do think the JW’s have a sort of obsession with Satan, blaming him for all sorts of things, from governments banning their preaching work, all the way through to the content of music/movies/the Internet.

I just wondered why I didn’t hear him mentioned in the theist/atheist debates I’ve seen. Perhaps one of the reasons is that JW’s talk about Satan a lot more than mainstream Christians do.

26

Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?

by Half a Person in

i have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.

its usually something along the lines of:.

our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?

Half a Person

@teel

Yeah that makes sense. Coming from an “us-against-the-world” Christian sect, I had never thought about it like that.

@Deputy Dog

I can see why you prefer “causing” to “allowing”. “Allowing” paints God as being a bit of a passive observer, whereas if he is truly active and totally in control, then “causing” would be a better description.

God doesn't owe anyone life.

I can sort of understand this, but it does make God seem a bit… Well, nasty. And things like earthquakes and terminal illness are quite arbitrary in who they target. It’s like God has walked up to humanity with a machine gun and is just randomly firing into the crowd. “You all deserve to die! [MACHINE GUN FIRE] You should count yourselves lucky if you escape! [MACHINE GUN FIRE] P.S. Come and worship me.”

I thought that by using the “Satan explanation,” Christians could defend God against accusations of cruelty by showing that *someone else* is behind bad things happening. But perhaps the Christian response is that God doesn’t need anyone to make excuses for his behaviour, and that humans don’t have the right to question his actions (or inaction) anyway.

Out of the storm the Lord spoke to Job once again
…
Are you trying to prove that I am unjust
to put me in the wrong and yourself in the right?

(Job 40:6, 8, Good News Bible)

26

Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?

by Half a Person in

i have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.

its usually something along the lines of:.

our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?

Half a Person

I have just been watched the first part of a sort-of “theist vs atheist” debate on Youtube featuring Christopher Hitchens.

What struck me is that in all of these types of debates that I’ve seen, the Christians, when faced with the question “Why does God allow suffering”, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer. It’s usually something along the lines of:

“Our question shouldn’t be ‘What is *God* doing’, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: ‘What am *I* doing?’” (avoiding the question)

“These sort of things are a test.” (as if suffering was some sort of self-improvement programme.)

“When people do bad things, they must face the consequences of their actions.” (in other words – “It’s your fault!” This doesn’t really explain earthquakes, though.)

“God *has* intervened before, but doesn’t do it too much, because he allows humans to have free will.” (But how does this explain e.g. terminal illnesses which aren’t caused by free will?)

A JW would answer by saying that the world is currently ruled by Satan (1 John 5:19), “because how could Satan offer Jesus ‘all the kingdoms of the world’ unless they were his to offer?’” (Matt 4:8, 9). Then they would probably pluck a few verses from all over the bible (Daniel 2:44, Revelation 21:3, 4) to show that God has big plans for the future, when He’s going to “sort everything out.”

To me, the JW version at least makes some sense. The person listening to the JW argument could react like this:

“Oh, I see. So God knows about all the problems in the world, he’s upset by them, it’s not his fault, he has a plan and he’s going to do something about it soon™. That makes sense.”

Whereas the reaction to the non-JW argument might be something like:

“Oh, I see. God knows about all the problems in the world, but he just lets them happen anyway. He has a plan, we don’t know all the details, but just trust him, OK? The most important thing is to count your blessings, and serve him.”

Which (in my opinion), doesn’t really work as an explanation. I mean, if God’s *in charge* of the world, then why does it look like it does at the moment? If he’s *in control*, the least he could do is cut back on the earthquakes.

So I was just thinking, seeing as though all Christians have access to verses like 1 John 5:19 (“the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one”), why don’t they use them in their arguments against atheists? Surely the “wicked ruler Satan” explanation is better than the “God of puzzling inaction” explanation?

Disclaimer: I probably fit into the category of “atheist” myself.

7

My notes on the new Creation DVD

by Half a Person in

i was given a copy of the new wonders of creation dvd.

as i watched it, i made some notes, which i have included below.

i'm not sure they make any sense without actually seeing the dvd, but hopefully they give an idea of the general contents and the sort of arguments that are used.. .

Half a Person

Did you notice Ted trying to smile at the end?

Yes, I saw that.

Also I like when it cuts to a different camera but he just continues talking to the first one.

Director: "Brother Jaracz, the red light tells you which camera to look at. If we can just..."

Jaracz: "I'M NOT DOING IT AGAIN!!!"*

(*May not have actually happened. Probably it was intentional. But I like to imagine it wasn't)

7

My notes on the new Creation DVD

by Half a Person in

i was given a copy of the new wonders of creation dvd.

as i watched it, i made some notes, which i have included below.

i'm not sure they make any sense without actually seeing the dvd, but hopefully they give an idea of the general contents and the sort of arguments that are used.. .

Half a Person

PART TWO

0:00 Narrator: "But what draws us even closer to Jehovah in a personal way is Life itself - and how he designed us to enjoy it." Back to the father and son. Father to son: "Michael - look how much fun they're having." (cut to JW-style barbecue picnic in the woods) "We're not robots. Jehovah's given us the ability to love, and form satisfying relationships."

There's something kind of weird about the term "satisfying relationships." Why not just say "friendships"? "Satisfying relationships" is like the Society's way of saying "Relationships that are carried out according to our rules." For example, I can't help thinking about the terms "Good/bad association", how "spiritual" a person is, what things can't be talked about (criticising the Society), and supporting the organisation by always "encouraging" each other to stay in it.

0:30 - "[We have the ability] to laugh, and play. We can appreciate beautiful music. See in vivid colours. Smell and taste an almost infinite variety. These things aren't necessary for life."

Erm... Yes they are. Or at least, *were*, at some point in our evolutionary history. Sometimes the style of the Society's arguments against evolution suggests that evolutionists are idiots who haven't even thought about things like this. Colour vision! What a brilliant argument for design! I mean, there's absolutely no way that that could have evolved, right? No mere evolutionist could even begin to imag... Oh, wait:

"High-quality colour vision with a three-colour system may have evolved in our primate ancestors as an aid to finding fruits in the green forest. It has even been suggested, by the Cambridge psychologist John Mollon, that the three-colour system 'is a device invented by certain fruiting trees in order to propagate themselves': an imaginative way to calling attention to the fact that trees benefit from attracting mammals to eat their fruit and spread the seeds."
- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, page 58.

My reason for including this quote isn't to say "Richard Dawkins is wonderful and knows all the answers and is definitely correct." No. My point is, the Society deliberately "wins" these sort of arguments by presenting only half of the evidence, and then virtually bans individual JW's from doing any research except in their own publications. They don't want people to ask "why?" and search for answers. They just want everyone to accept their own pre-prepared answers, and ignore evidence to the contrary. In this respect they are like the Catholic Church a few hundred years ago.

You could argue that they deliberately keep followers "in the dark" about evidence for evolution.

1:05 - Michael (the boy) is imagining what life would be like without all these wonderful senses: Just a bunch of people sitting around, wearing white, doing nothing, saying nothing, and eating gruel. "That would be boring," he says.

2:00 - Quote from Ecclesiates 3:11 - "He has put time indefinite into our hearts".

The Society uses this scripture to support the idea that Jehovah wants us to live forever, but I can't help feeling that this is not what this verse means. Perhaps it means: "God has put eternity into man's *heart*, but hasn't put it into man's actual *life*. So you can certainly *think* about the future, but one day you are going to die; the same fate (death with no resurrection) awaits everybody." (Ecc 9:2,3) I think this sounds more in harmony with the everything-is-vanity style of Ecclesiates.

2:10 "The more we observe creation, the more we appreciate that life is a gift, meant to be enjoyed."

A bit of common sense. Can't argue with that.

2:54 "The variety we see in the animal kingdom is breathtaking." Shot of a peacock's tail.

I can see where this is going.

"The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me feel sick!" - Charles Darwin.

3:05 - Shots of animals walking, chirping, cuddling, jumping, yawning, marching, swimming

Just like a wildlife documentary, but with all the sex and violence taken out.

3:56 - Shot of a Gazelle running

Hm, I wonder why it's running so fast? Perhaps because it's being chased by another of God's "creatures great and small" (Ps 104:25), which is no doubt trying to kill and eat it. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, GAZELLE!! Anyway, back to the soothing music and animals which *aren't* facing imminent digestion.

4:15 - "Who taught x animal to perform y behaviour?" (long list)

Oh! I've got one: "Who taught the female spider to eat the male after sex?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism

And another: "Who instructed the cuckoo in the ways of the Mafia?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite#.22Mafia_hypothesis.22

5:00 - DNA. "Incredibly, whether a majestic redwood, or an exotic orchid, a giant whale, or a newborn baby, the design for every living organism is recorded in the same format."

I don't think we're going to hear the words "common ancestor", though.

6:44. Humans. Psalm 139:13-16. "Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing."

The quote stops midway though verse 16, missing off the last part, which reads:

As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.
(New World Translation)

To me, this is really difficult to understand. What on earth does it mean? Here's the last part of verse 16 from some different translations:

All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
(New International Version)

The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book, before any of them ever began
(Good News Bible)

So is the New World Translation hiding the meaning of the text? Does this verse support predestination? (also compare verse 4) Or is it just really ambiguous Hebrew that could have a number of meanings? I don't know.

7:15 - "What makes us so unique? Of all of Jehovah's earthly creations, how are we different?" Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image."

The reality is probably the exact opposite - with a person (or group)'s "God" being a reflection of his (or their) qualities. (just my opinion)

7:50 - "Our inborn spiritual need...". A man is shown praying.

I haven't prayed for over a year now and I haven't dropped dead yet. Can it really be described as a spiritual *need* if you can survive without it?

7:53 - "...our capacity for love, all separate us from God's animal creation."

HUMANS R TEH BEST!!! Because, of course, no animals are capable of love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Elephant_society

8:08 - "Jehovah gave us the potential to go on living forever." On the brain: "Amazingly, our creative capacity and potential for learning is limitless."

Is this a version of the ten-percent myth?

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

9:30 - "Out of love, Jehovah promises us a life that we can only dream of."

This is the organisation's way of saying: "Do as we say, and in just a little while all of your dreams will come true!"

9:40 - "Jehovah will cleanse the earth"

This is a euphemism for "kill 6 billion people".

9:54 - "In this New World, we will appreciate animal creation like never before." Shots of a sister petting a lion.

Because the best way to "appreciate" nature's ultra-adapted killing machines is to reduce them to the level of "docile idiot-pet". Strip them of their power and turn them into large, furry tamagotchis.

10:03 - "We can only imagine how rich the real life will be." New System summary.

10:44 - "In vain, many have searched for purpose and meaning through careers..." (woman with about 100 shopping bags arrives at top of escalator and checks her watch)

"Career" is a dirty word in Watchtower-land, just like "ambition". The underlying message is: "There's no point. There's no point in trying to find a satisfying job. Because you won't. Forget all that and come and work for 'Jehovah' (us)."

12:50 - Ted Jaracz is back. I think he's reading from an autocue.

15:02 - Ted: "So many are preoccupied with the imagery and fantasy of television, movies and video games."

Of course, Jehovah's People(TM) aren't preoccupied with imagery and fantasy. On the contrary, they would rather consider *real* things, like scarlet-coloured wild beasts, or large, multi-material statues, or the imminent destruction of everyone but themselves, or the angels who accompany them on their house-to-house ministry.

16:10 - Ted: "It is wise not to be unduly distracted by the works of this world. Neither should we become totally absorbed in personal pursuits or selfish interests."

"The works of this world", or: "Actual Real Life".

The Society promotes the view that "doing spiritual things" (attending its meetings, studying and distributing its literature, recruiting new members) is like depositing funds into a spiritual bank account (Matt 6:20). But (my opinion), instead of going straight up to heaven, all those reports are actually being sucked up though a pneumatic tube then dumped in the middle of a field where no-one collects them. Just like in "Lost".

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Pearl#Message_tube

16:33 - Fade to black. It's over! The usual "encouragements" at the end: Regular meeting attendance, daily Bible reading, weekly family study.

7

My notes on the new Creation DVD

by Half a Person in

i was given a copy of the new wonders of creation dvd.

as i watched it, i made some notes, which i have included below.

i'm not sure they make any sense without actually seeing the dvd, but hopefully they give an idea of the general contents and the sort of arguments that are used.. .

Half a Person

I was given a copy of the new Wonders of Creation DVD. As I watched it, I made some notes, which I have included below. I'm not sure they make any sense without actually seeing the DVD, but hopefully they give an idea of the general contents and the sort of arguments that are used.

0:00 - Ted Jaracz appears on screen and encourages us to "see the qualities and personality of our Grand Creator".

So presumably we won't be seeing any footage of animals killing each other's offspring. Or parasites. Or gay animals.

1:00 - Obligatory reference to Romans 1:20

Only the first part of verse 20 is displayed on screen. The Bible itself goes on to say that those who don't accept God are "inexcusable", "empty-headed" and "unintelligent". But it's probably a bit early in the video to start having a go at any sceptical viewers by including these words. Better to win them over with pretty pictures rather than call them stupid.

1:31 - A father and son walk though the woods, checking out the wildlife. Father says to son: "You know, there's a lot of amazing things to see out here. But you can't see them all with your eyes."

Here, the father teaches his son an important lesson about being a JW :- That invisible things are just as important as visible ones. Things like Jesus' invisible-since-1914 presence, or the invisible evidence for a global flood, or the invisible original manuscripts of the New Testament containing the divine name.

2:40 - Title sequence, then voiceover: "Many enjoy looking at creation. But few realise that they are catching a glimpse into the mind and heart of our Grand Creator."

It sounded to me like he put a bit of scorn into the word "looking". Like all these "many" people, whoever they are, should be ashamed of themselves for just "looking", and not taking their "looking" to the Next Level. Which, presumably, involves jumping to the conclusion that the Adventist-offshoot religion which keeps waking them up on a Saturday morning is the one and only Truth(TM) which they must dedicate the rest of their lives to.

3:00 - A young shepherd-not-yet-king David stares at the moon and says some nice words to God.

Fortunately for David, all these currying-favour-with-God Psalms will come in handy later in life, when he does something wrong and, as punishment, God kills his infant son instead of him. In a similar fashion, God kills lots of random innocent people, because David decides to count them. (1 Chronicles 21:14) So, in summary, looking at the moon and saying nice things about God is good, because when you do something wrong, God will punish someone else in your place.

4:00 - Narrator: "Do you take time to look beyond the man-made world? When you do, even something seemingly common becomes extraordinary, as you open your eyes to see the one who made it."

To me, this carries the implication that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only people who can REALLY appreciate the natural world. Everyone else is presumably too busy buying HD-ready televisions and watching Torchwood to notice "life, our planet, and the starry heavens."

But this isn't true. There is a lot of love for the natural world outside the JW's, like Carl Sagan or Science Friday. Even Richard Dawkins, in his book Unweaving the Rainbow, is bubbling over with enthusiasm for the light spectrum, prisms and Fraunhofer lines.

And the Society responds by biting the hand that feeds it all of this information. They take scientists' words out of context to support whatever point they are trying to make. They are happy to paint scientists as fraudsters who manipulate evidence for their own personal gain. (Awake! 1990 1/22)

4:57 - There are lots of stars. (illustration)

5:35 - Pictures from the Hubble Space telescope.

5:50 - Narrator: "But did Jehovah scatter them randomly? Even at this colossal scale, elegant organisation is seen." (Isaiah 40:22 is read)

Citation needed! That's what I say. How do I know half of these stars aren't crashing into each other all the time?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/06/02/stellar.collisions/

6:22 - Stars are very far apart. (illustration)

7:36 - More scriptures and Hubble pictures.

8:00 - e = mc². Video of mushroom cloud. "Man has often used [power] destructively. In contrast, as a potter with clay, Jehovah skillfully used his dynamic energy"

What a contrast. Unlike man, Jehovah certainly wouldn't use power destructively. He wouldn't, for example, cause a global flood, or ten plagues, or Armageddon.

8:40 - Even MORE Hubble pictures. "In modern times, we have peered into the far reaches of space. And seen creation at an awe-inspiring scale." More scriptures.

All this talk of "creation" sort of calls to mind the whole Creation Vs Evolution thing. But of course, evolution by natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with stars. I wonder if they're going to talk about living organisms?

9:33 - Father and son again. Son asks father: "Do you really think [Jehovah] cares about each of us on earth?" Father replies: "He shows that he cares in how he designed a comfortable home made just right for us."

OK. First of all, I'm sure that much of the "comfort" and "just right"-ness of modern [Western] life actually comes from man-made conveniences. I'm sure there are some residents of Planet Earth who would not describe their existence as "comfortable". Secondly, I was reminded of a Douglas Adams quote:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

10:33 - Water. "Each molecule has a deceptively simple design. Two atoms of hydrogen attached to one atom of oxygen."

At least he didn't say: "BEHOLD! The Atheist's nightmare!" We're still firmly in physics territory though, there's no rush to get onto biology.

12:10 - Ice is like a sea blanket that keeps penguins warm.

12:20 - Interesting juxtaposition: Picture of a beach sunset, with the caption: "Revelation 14:7".

The gist of this scripture is "God made the sea", but Revelation chapter 14 also contains lots of other stuff, like this:

poured out undiluted into the cup of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest

and this:

And the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and he hurled it into the great winepress of the anger of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress as high up as the bridles of the horses, for a distance of a thousand six hundred furlongs.

which isn't really what I'd associate with a holiday destination.

12:40 - Narrator: "Had the Earth been situated only 5 percent closer to the Sun, scorching heat would have made life impossible." Picture of a damaged Golden Gate Bridge with a skeleton beneath it.

Er... If life on earth was impossible due to the "scorching heat", then who built the Golden Gate Bridge? If there was no life, then what is that skeleton doing there? PICTURE FAIL.

13:00 - Earth is just the right size.

13:41 - "Both its size and proximity to the sun reveal that Jehovah formed the earth"

As opposed to, say, Allah forming the earth, or Baal forming the earth?

Surely, the only thing this "reveals" is that the earth has the right dimensions and location to accommodate our kind of life. It's a bit of a leap to suggest that these facts actually (a) prove that there is a designer, and (b) identify exactly who he is.

14:30 - The moon stabilises the earth's 23.4° tilt - "Without the moon, the earth would wobble over long periods of time from nearly 0° to 85°. This would have an extreme effect on our climate."

Hey, I actually learned something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#Long_period_variations

I'm not sure where they got those figures from though.

15:11 - "It is fitting that the Bible calls our moon 'a faithful witness in the skies'". (Psalm 89:37)

Yeah, that's nice 'n' all, but it doesn't really say anything about gravity or tilts or climate. It might as well say: "The moon is bright and pretty and dependably predictable!"

24

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 07-12-09 WT Study (DAY NEAR)

by blondie in

jw
friends

(b) pressing on to maturity requires effort in what two areas?

(read hebrews 5:14.

2:10) moreover, their perceptive powers are trained through use--through application of what they know--helping them to distinguish right from wrong.

Half a Person

@passwordprotected & Billy

Thanks for the welcome!

24

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 07-12-09 WT Study (DAY NEAR)

by blondie in

jw
friends

(b) pressing on to maturity requires effort in what two areas?

(read hebrews 5:14.

2:10) moreover, their perceptive powers are trained through use--through application of what they know--helping them to distinguish right from wrong.

Half a Person

P3
some had become "dull in [their] hearing." They were like spiritual babes needing "milk" (Read Hebrews 5:11-13.) Even some of those who had walked in the way of the truth for decades were showing signs of "drawing away from the living God."

Translation: Anyone who leaves the organisation is a crybaby.

Was the widdle baby's faith hurt by the big scary apostates?

Thank goodness all the strong, grown-up, mature people have "done away with the traits of a babe!" Jehovah's People(TM) enjoy a varied diet of "food," not just getting it all from one source or anything. It's not like they get all their "food" from an organisation they call "mother". Oh, wait...

P4
where we are in the stream of time.

I think the Watchtower Society are floundering somewhere in the middle of the stream of time. They're refusing all attempts at being rescued, and instead they shout a lot about how close they are to the end of the stream. They've caught cold, and it's amazing they haven't drowned yet, really.

P9, 10
Becoming acquainted with the Bible involves more than being familiar with what it says.

Yes, the real key to Bible understanding is knowing what the Bible REALLY says; that is, knowing what the Society says the Bible says. This can be found in such places as the middle column (marginal references) in the New World Translation.

P11
[they] kept "putting Jehovah to the test." Why? Because of a lack of water to drink. (Ex. 17:1-4)

Fancy complaining about something as inconsequential as not having enough water to drink. Bah! There are brothers practically having nervous breakdowns but they still drag themselves to the meetings! The Society is happy to see people who would rather have their lives crumble to pieces than miss a single morning knocking doors to distribute its wonderful literature.

Q13
God's counsel...is clear. (Matt. 28: 19, 20)

When Jesus said "baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit", what he REALLY meant, was: "baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Spirit-Directed-Organisation". The words were just so *clear* that the Society had to change them, to let the clearness shine through.

P14
a world that is "past all moral sense." (Eph. 4: 19)

Yeah. I went to Subway today and (a) in the queue were some teenagers who said "please" and "thank you", and (b) the person behind the counter complimented me for my patience for waiting in line while they trained new staff. WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END!?!?!?

"When we were alone in a production room, though, she began making sexual advances. I thought it was a joke but found it very hard to stop her. Right then I recalled an experience related in The Watchtower regarding a brother who faced a similar temptation on his job. The article used the example of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. I promptly pushed the girl away, and she ran out."

It's the old, old story. Boy talks to girl, girl likes boy, girl makes hopeful advance, boy pushes girl away because of three thousand year old legend brought to life by mind-controlling international book publishing corporation. How many times have we heard that story?

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Half a Person

The above shows your ignorance of the Bible and tells me that you have either never read the book or read at least never read it in detail as the Bible itself says that Christianity is irrational. Nowhere does the book ever state that Christianity makes sense from a rational standpoint. Quite the opposite actually as Paul stated that the Cross is foolishness (literal word in koine is Moronic). So saying that Christianity is a rational belief system is false as it was never meant to be rational in the first place. As a result your premise is flawed and as a result so is your logic.

But I think from a JW perspective, the Watchtower Society does present its belief system as being rooted in rationality, unlike all those other "evil Christian" religions with their superstition, rituals and nonsensical beliefs.

*** w97 10/1 p. 4 Can You Believe in a Personal God? ***
What, then, are we to believe? It is rational to believe in a personal God. It is the key to answering the compelling questions raised above. We invite you to consider the evidence presented in the following article.