Posts by cofty

138

Jehovah God is Real

by TakeOffTheCrown in

there are many on this site that do not believe that jehovah truly exists; that he is not a real being.

but, he is as real as next breath you draw into your nostrils.. some of you say that there is no evidence that he exists.

yet, none of you can prove that he does not exits.. cofty, (you come to mind), i appreciate that you have stated, without reservation, that you do not believe that god exists.. yet, you cannot prove it.. hope in jehovah..

cofty

Cofty, (you come to mind), I appreciate that you have stated, without reservation, that you do not believe that God exists. Yet, you cannot prove it. - TOTC

Yes I can prove that god does not exist.

In this context ...

1. "Prove" means prove beyond all reasonable doubt by objective evidence.

2. "God" means the god of christian theism: the god and father of Jesus.

I have already delivered on this challenge on numerous occasions but I will happily post a new thread in the near future to bring all of the main points of my argument into one place.

21

Royal Commission Australia - Report into Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society has been released

by OrphanCrow in

link to pdf:.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/report-of-case-study-no-29.

reading it now...no comment yet.

cofty

So what happens next?

Will the government of Australia take action based on the report?

29

Dr Monica Applewhite's evidence rejected by Australian Child Abuse Royal Commission

by jwleaks in

australian child abuse royal commission rejects dr monica applewhite's evidence and testimony.. [quote] dr applewhite acknowledged that her report did not identify the basis on which she had formed her opinions.657 she accepted that her report failed to identify the ‘current standards’ of other religious organisations658 or which ‘religious organisations’ she referred to in writing her report.659 dr applewhite told the royal commission that her understanding of material provided to parents and families about sexual development in children by other faith-based organisations was ‘anecdotal’.660.

dr applewhite accepted that it would be difficult for the royal commission to accept the opinions expressed in paragraphs 36, 45, and 46 of her report because her report did not identify the basis on which those opinions were formed.661.

we do not consider that dr applewhite’s report and the opinions expressed therein assist the royal commission in its inquiry for the following reasons:.

cofty

The report is limited to an opinion about the documented policies and other material rather than about the practical application and effect of those documented policies.

She is either lazy or willing to say whatever she is paid to say.

15

Acts 15,19-21 James on Dietary Law and Blood ( some of the oldest available manuscripts with the passage)

by TheWonderofYou in

the bible manuscript below is a picture of the p45 (gregory aland number) from the 3rd century.

i have cut out the passage of acts 15,19-21 from the greek text.

you can compare the p45 with the greek text from nestle aland.

cofty

Thank you. Really interesting stuff. Marking to read in detail this evening.

46

New Resolution?

by NikL in

jw
friends

had our midweek meeting last night.

they had a resolution to send an extra (i wanna say $1100 but i only remember it was at least $1000) per month to forward the kingdom preaching work etc.. you know how they work in the kh...no one votes against anything.

i abstained as i almost have always done.

cofty

That picture of hungry grandma is ethically shameful.

They have reached a new low.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

cofty

Thanks Simon.

Will listen to it this evening and see if he makes a convincing case.

apparently there is a right wing commentator, on Fox News... - SBF

You could finish that phrase with absolutely any foolishness imaginable.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

cofty

Very interesting points Bohm thank you for your input.

I enjoy forum conversations most when people explain with evidence and reason why I may be wrong. I appreciate it.

I have often been accused on the forum of being unwilling to ever admit being wrong. It's not true. I just need reasons to convince me. Being in a minority of one isn't ever a reason.

I will watch developments with interest.

By the way I agree that Trump poses an egregious threat to free speech.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

cofty

Please notice that you changed my example to something else.

Yes I did. If Peterson is correct a hotel will be unable to fire a male receptionist who turns up in a dress and a beard claiming that this is his/her/they/Zi version of "gender expression". That would be a bad law.

You believe that it should be legal to fire a fireman for coming out trans?

No.

For instance, suppose a female fireman comes out as a man, you believe it should be possible to fire that person?

No absolutely not. Not unless something interferes with their ability to perform their duties.

Again if Peterson is correct, the fireman/woman will be able to demand that they are referred to by made-up pronouns. They employer would be liable for the failure of other employees to comply. IF Peterson's interpretation is correct.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

cofty

Firstly, do you agree with Peterson this bill forms an unprecedented and new challenge to free speech in Canada?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Peterson's explanation of why it does is compelling but perhaps he will be shown to be mistaken. If it does coerce others to use made-up pronouns then it is a very bad law and should be opposed by everybody who cares about free speech. Even those who think that made-up pronouns are charmingly whimsical.

trans people should be a protected category, i.e. that you are not allowed to fire a fireman for coming out women similar to how you should not be allowed to fire him if he converts to Christianity?

I'm not sure if I'm on the same page with you about that. Converting to christianity demonstrates poor judgement but it probably doesn't interfere with a person's suitability to do most jobs. Insisting on turning up for work as a hotel receptionist in a dress and a beard probably would. That is why it is a badly formed law. "Gender expression" can be interpreted to mean absolutely anything.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

cofty

Jordans position is that on campus he should still be able to call the person "him" or "her" according to the student's biological sex

For the third time no it isn't.

He has stated clearly - including in the latest video I posted - that he has no problem addressing a transgender person as he or she according to their preference.

SBF did not "nail it". He also misrepresented Peterson's position - straw man.

To assert that issues that don't concern you should be dismissed because, in your opinion x or y is a bigger issue is not an argument.