yesterday i had an interesting visitor—my long-time school friend.
we both studied with jws together, and he progressed to dedication and baptism whereas i stopped before the final step and got transferred to another place.
after the routine conversations, he said: “you know how much your family members long to see you take up the truth ….. before it is too late, i would suggest you start tasting jehovah.”.
some of the molecules learned (again by experience) that they could continue to exist and replicate if they encased themselves in a bag full of the original organic goo
It would be good if you did some reading on evolution before you tried to defend it.
awake!
1 2017 says on its back page.
the saharan silver ant (cataglyphis bombycina) is one of the most heat-tolerant land animals known.
According to the bible's explanation, the present features we observe in animals that are used for hunting
Only somebody who is woefully ignorant of natural history could say something so incredible.
i'm hoping to start a series of posts refuting common, fallacious jw reasoning that they repeat to support their teachings or defend their organization.
in this first installment i will be tackling the common fallacious analogy used by them to equate eating blood with receiving a transfusion.
feel free to share your own refutations on each thread.. "if a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol you wouldn't go injecting it into your veins, would you?".
Great idea for a series.
On this one I would go a different way. I would agree that Acts 15 is unequivocal that christians must abstain from blood. I would focus on context to establish how early christians would understand that decree.
Briefly...
1 - Acts 15 was about a dispute in the early church. Did gentile christians have to get circumcised and keep the law?
2 - The final decision was that they did not but in order for gentile and Jewish christians to enjoy fellowship - and not hinder the good news - there were a few "necessary things" to be observed.
3 - These necessary things were the same things non-Israelites had to observe when sojourning in Israel in OT times. Fornication (especially forbidden marriages), Idolatry and blood
4 - If we examine the Law on blood in the OT we find that it only related to killing an animal for food. If a beast was found "already dead" it could be eaten unbled with impunity. Moses even encouraged Israelites to sell such beasts to non-Jews. Blood represented the life that had been taken and which had to be returned to the life-giver. Since nobody gives their life to donate blood the decree to abstain from blood does not apply.
This also explains why the "necessary things" do not include murder, rape and theft. Jews and non-Jews share a taboo regarding these things.
awake!
1 2017 says on its back page.
the saharan silver ant (cataglyphis bombycina) is one of the most heat-tolerant land animals known.
All the wonderful "designs" we so admire in nature are for the purpose of getting laid and/or killing other wonderful things.
i work with a nurse who served for 2 years in the army of cyprus as is compulsory in that country.
i happened to ask about jw's and their consequential punishment for not doing it.
he laughed and stated that since 2009 they have to do it and that he personally knew several that 'served.
That's very surprising!
I think Cyprus comes under the oversight of the London Branch.
many of you don't know me or won't remember me.
i left the jw's and my husband and my home last september - forging a new life in a new town.
i haven't posted here for many months, but have been reading most days.
there's a lot of criticism surrounding the jw's handling of chiild abuse within their ranks with a lot of it being well deserved.
but i'm interested to know how people on here think child abuse allegations should be handled.
there's a few scenarios below, the first couple are easy then it gets a bit more complex.
Exploring the case for mandatory reporting: a summary of a roundtable hosted by the NSPCC..
there's a lot of criticism surrounding the jw's handling of chiild abuse within their ranks with a lot of it being well deserved.
but i'm interested to know how people on here think child abuse allegations should be handled.
there's a few scenarios below, the first couple are easy then it gets a bit more complex.
I think those are two legitimate questions. It's worrying that so many are quick to demonise somebody who even wants to have a sensible conversation about it.
I don't think anybody is trying to defend the WT's appallingly inadequate child welfare policies. The solutions are not entirely simple though. Yes if there is a report of an attack on a child the authorities must be told but not every scenario is clear-cut. Even the NSPCC the biggest child welfare charity in the UK is against mandatory reporting laws. When you read their reasons they have a good point.
I do think that enhanced DBS checks (criminal records) should be required for every elder and MS.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
What other kind of valid interpretation of reality do you accept beyond scientific method and atheism? ... You seems to use science and atheism as the only two kinds of valid and universal knowledge. - John_Mann
Hi John thank you for the question. Let me take the second part first.
Atheism isn't a basis for knowledge in that sense. It is simply a lack of belief in the claims of theism. If somebody is unconvinced that there is a supernatural being who is immanent and involved in the affairs of humans - who cares about our actions and judges us after our physical deaths - then we are atheists.
But that tells us nothing else about the atheist or about reality. I know of atheists who believe in fate or in astrology or homeopathy and all other sorts of irrational woo.
My appeal is for a rational, evidence-based approach; a commitment to discover what is objectively true about our world. The big change in my intellectual life was not when I left the Watchtower in '85 but when I abandoned faith as a valid basis of knowledge in '94. Being rational means that our beliefs should be in proportion to the available evidence.
Claims about supernatural worlds, gods, angels, souls and spirits are irrelevant in the pursuit of knowledge and in the moral debates of our time.
Science is the best method we have for uncovering facts about reality. It's how we try to get past our biases and superstitions and investigate the world objectively. Of course is has its limitations. Science cannot tell me whether I ought to prefer Martin Elliot's "Tennis Girl" poster (£2.99) or Tracey Emin's "Unmade Bed" (£2.2m) However there is a lot it can tell us about human nature that might explain my personal preference.
Science is based on an assumption of methodological naturalism. That doesn't mean that a scientist has to believe there is no supernatural world but that he must leave the supernatural outside the lab. If he is investigating the efficacy of a new cancer drug he can't factor in the effects of intercessory prayer. When he is investigating the possible benefits of human stem-cell research he cannot limit his pursuit of progress in case a frozen blastula might be imbued with an immortal soul.
Similarly when wrestling any moral dilemma the question of what decision will make god happy is inadmissible.
there's a lot of criticism surrounding the jw's handling of chiild abuse within their ranks with a lot of it being well deserved.
but i'm interested to know how people on here think child abuse allegations should be handled.
there's a few scenarios below, the first couple are easy then it gets a bit more complex.
I'm confused why Sir82 is rightly commended for a sensible approach but Landy is being mauled for taking the same position.
