Posts by simon17

18

The Weather Today Is......................................

by finallysomepride in

jw
friends

brisbane, australia.

temp: 32c = 89.6f with very high humidity.. moving from an airconditioned room to the outside is like crashing into a solid wall, ok ok not as bad as that.. had to get changed 3 times due to the perspiration.. tonite 7:05pm electrical storms now arrived, powers gone out & i've only got a led torch & my laptop (only 4 hours left on battery) for entertainment.

so glad i cooked dinner early tonight as i normally cook abit later in the evening.. hows the weather at your place?.

simon17

Beautiful in California... :)

97

I sued the local congregation

by chukky 594 in

jw
friends

several years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.

she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.

the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.

simon17

That being said......I NEVER considered suing the congregation, or the KH. Accidents happen and it's not their fault.

Why people are so litigious and sue happy, these days I don't understand. As long as there isn't any negligence or malice, I don't think it's right to sue. Someone getting hurt shouldn't create a windfall for them, or their parents.

Another thumbs up to this.

Its just an accident!

104

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm in

jw
friends

today i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.

this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.

the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).

simon17

When Craig talks about an objective basis for moral values, he isn't saying that there are always easy to understand rules that apply in every situation or that every human being will agree with those standards. He chose an example -- rape -- because it is one of the most clearcut areas of morality.

No he picks rape and Hitler because most athiests, who are conscious of their reputation in THIS society, are going to be very squimish with giving up absolute morality in those cases. And then he can lambast them because "they must be getting their underlying moral compass from SOMEWHERE." Its a good strategy. Also, one of the most "clearcut areas of morality" doesn't even make sense. There are no aspects of absolute morality that are any more or any less clearcut (at least in my mind there should be). And once you examine things you believe to be absolute that are not "as clearcut" you start to see that your idea of absolute right and wrong breaks down.

A true moral relativist -- having no objective standard to seek -- either goes along with the prevailing view of his society or does whatever seems right in his own eyes without concerning himself with what others think.

Yes, I go along with the prevailing view of society and I also succumb to evolutionary tendencies. I think its "wrong" for a baby to kill or abuse her children. Why? Because there is something that says this is the absolute wrong thing to do? No, because a reproducing species does not surivive with that sort of instinct or tendency. So I have a tendency, just like the rest of society in general, to have a loving and protective view of children. As an example

Moral relativism says that there is no absolute standard that we should be seeking to understand and apply. Rather, morality is relative. One society has one set of standards. Another society has another set of standards. The standards of any given society are always in flux. No standard can be measured by an absolute standard and thereby said to be better or worse than another. "Better" or "worse" by whose standard? It's all relative.

But I don't think you really believe that. I think very few people are true relative moralists, and that I think is Craig's point.

Better or worse by the goals of society. Better or worse by our evolutionary nature. In my opinion, it is better for society, genetic diversity, etc that we don't kill large portions of the population. It is also contrary to evolution. You dont kill of your own species if you want your species to survive.

I assume you would consider the prevailing moral standards in the USA (as reflected in our current set of laws) to be far superior to the prevailing moral standards of Nazi Germany. And you don't consider this to be merely a subjective personal preference of yours with the Nazis' preferences being equally fine for them (as with conflicting opinions over which colors we like better).

Don't you think the genocide of Jews was really wrong morally and that it would be morally wrong even if Hitler succeeded in establishing a society where everyone left alive agreed with him that it was morally justified? If so, where would that moral standard come from? How could it exist independently of what all the human beings on earth agreed to? If morality is just a creation of human beings, how could everyone be "wrong"?

Ok so I wont say there is some higher standard of wrongness or rightness. Being raised in this society, being a product of evolution, the Holocaust is against everything that I am naturally taught to feel. But I wont go as far to say that our society is definitely "better" than their society on an objective scale. It's hard for me to imagine any scenerio where that would help society. Maybe our current society in believing every life is precious will get consumed in overcrowding, overpopulation and exterminate ourselves fighting for resources. Maybe a cold, genocidal population would simply think nothing of killing off the "weak" and that civilization would survive. I don't know. I doesn't make any sense to me based on who I am as a human being in this society, but it is conceivable.

Society tends to think that its morality is getting better and better. To take your list, we don't have slavery in the USA any more. We've evolved past that. Homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality (at least that's the direction in which our society is heading). Abortion is fine as long as the mother chooses it (that's USA constitutional law now). Genocide is wrong under all circumstances. We're far more enlightened that those repressive days of the 1950s and 1850s right?

We have certainly progressed scientifically a lot. Are morals today better or worse than then? I dont know. I am sure you will find differing opinions on that.

But suppose in the next hundred years the US collapses as the Roman empire did and is replaced by a dictator with the racial views of Jefferson Davis and the worldview of Stalin. He rules with an iron hand. His views become accepted as the norm. Now slavery is morally acceptable again. Homosexuality is an abomination again and must be eradicated by execution. Abortion is wrong unless ordered by the State in which case it is fine. Genocide is acceptable and good if ordered by the State.

Is there no absolute standard by which we can say that our current morality is better than that one? Is it all a matter of what societies think or feel or want at any given point in time?

Well in some sense you DO believe the "horror" scenerio is better, in terms of homosexuality being eradicated.

But to play along, i believe our current situation is better for the survival of the species, yes. Not because of an absolute code. But because trampling on other sentient beings (ie. with slavery) will cause them to try to reach out for what is morally acceptable to THEM. It would cause chaos and trouble in society if that were to happen (as it eventually did in the past). But from the standpoint of the people owning slaves, while they owned them and they were obedient, I will not judge if that society is "better" or "worse" than mine.

We treat feeling animals as slaves right now as it is. We just abuse them because they can't aspire to some moral code of their own and try to reach it. Are we a better or worse society for doing this? I don't know.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

See my post higher up on page 4.

Your argument there is really troubling. First off, it might have been known that regular literature at that time was often exaggerated. Does that mean that the inerrent Word of God would stoop to such a low standard?

Second, you're suggesting a model of the Bible that gets used time and time again: View the Bible as accurate, because really, you're too stupid to understand the truth anyway. If you're smart enough to figure out something is, indeed, wrong or exaggerated, then just realize it was written that way to trick the common man's stupid mind into believing what they should.

examples...

* The World was created in 6 days. Ok, sounds good. Wait no, science says it wasn't. Oh, well, the Bible knew that it just said "days" because thats what idiots would understand.

* The earth and light was created before the sun and stars. Ok, makes sense. Wait no, science disagrees. Oh well, the Bible knew that it just said the sun was "created" on the 4th day because if you are an idiot standing on earth during creation, thats what it looks like happened.

* There was a global flood and Jesus talked about it. Ok explains the rainbows and stuff. Wait no, science disagrees. Well, it got the point across to idiots, and anywya Jesus didn't really say "global" anyway.

That leads to:

* The Bible is God's word. Ok, makes me feel better about my crappy life. Wait no...

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

We find something we agree on simon17!!! Celebrate!

You're a good guy, I like having you in a debate (on either side)

104

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm in

jw
friends

today i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.

this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.

the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).

simon17

Ok Ding, I appreciate your responses but the it reveals two flaws: First i understand that the Bible doesn't examine every situation that is why I let you have a 3rd option of "Depends".

#1) Part of WLC's argument is that there are absolute laws of morality that we all intrinsically just "know". He uses Rape and Hitler because we all generally feel that way. Now you extend this to homosexuality. Well, a lot of people don't intrinsically have any sort of feeling that this is wrong. I am one of these. Many homosexuals will grow up feeling that homosexuality is absolutuely RIGHT to them and how their body functions (we have one on this board who described it just a week or two ago). So we run into the problem of "ok, we have objective morals that everyone knows because they are objective -- like rape". But then we have all these other objective morals that people don't naturally feel at all! So how are they objective? You see? WLC appealed to their existence by our ability to just know them but then he (and you) extend it to things that this is not true about at all!

#2) We then have things like genocide that you basically want to say are objectively and absolutely immoral. Oh, but no. Not absolutely. If God does it, its ok. Oh, and if God asks you to do it, its ok. Well now its not an absolute AT ALL! Its now a subjective moral value. Genocide is wrong unless xxxxxxxxxx. So that destroys the notion of absolute morals anyway.

This doesn't show God doesn't exist mind you. I'm just arguing absolute morality doesn't exist. If you want to argue that there is not absolute right or wrong, everything depends on the situation and God can do whatever he wants at all times because he's unstoppable, then go ahead.

My point with this is your own definition of absolute morality is ruined by your examples of it.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

This is just so far fetched. If Jesus was just using the story as a well-known, uninspired story that people could relate to, then would you at least agree that it has caused a tremendous amount of confusion for millenia about the history of the earth? I mean, I'm sure you can find an example or two of people who argued against a literal Genesis but I'm sure you would also agree that the VAAAAAAAAST MAJORITY of people took it as inspired (and many did so BECAUSE OF Jesus' words).

Even today people believe the worldwide flood (mistakenly so according to you) because of Jesus' words. BrotherDan is an example in this very thread. So basically if your speculation is correct, than at the very least, Jesus' words were incredibly (and unnecessarily) misleading.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

Well Psac, I like reading your analysis in general: Agree to disagree I suppose.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

First of all, I make references to movies pretty often. For example I might say to my family: "I set my phone up so I can track it online, just like Sherlock did with that murder victims phone."

I can safely use that example with my family because I know they saw that episode. And I don't have to point out that I don't believe it actually happened.

Jesus could easily have used the Noah story as an example because he knew his audience would be familiar with it. That doesn't have to mean that he believed it actually happened. He also doesn't mention anything about it being global.

No. In your example you can use the allusion becuase you AND YOUR AUDIENCE don't actually believe it. Every Bible believer up until modern geology believed that the Flood account was accurate as stated. So it would be misleading for Jesus to allude to a story HE knew was false but which he knew his audience believed as true. It would also call into question the entire inspiration of Genesis which would have further ramifications.

25

I need help with what to believe?

by hannahmcmanus in

i've been jehovah's witness for about a year now, and recently i've been finding problems in some teachings that my parents and congregation can't answer satisfactorily.

since i began voicing my issues my mum in particular has become increasingly overbearing and, although she says there's nothing wrong with asking questions, it's obvious she doesn't like me having doubts and not accepting her answers, even though they don't explain any of my problems.

it feels like i'm being forced down a path that i don't want to take, but i don't know what to do.

simon17

Asking "help me with what to believe" will simply lead you from one high control group to another. Figure out what to believe FOR YOURSELF. You may never get to a satisfactory point, but you will be truly satistfied with whatever progress you do make.