Posts by cofty

34

Bringing reproach on Jehovah's name.

by ScottyRex in

jw
friends

i have thought long and hard about this, you know in those midnight hours.. you will probably string me alive in what i say, but here you go-.

i feel that the jw's do have the truth.

i do agree with the doctrines and biblical exgenesis they propound.i do feel that they have the 'truth' i do understand they are imperfect, and i think they have had to 'refine' their teachings as time has gone on-and change accordingly- i see nothing wrong with this.

cofty

I feel that the JW's do have the truth. I really do

The entire WT theology rests on the foundation of a literal Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. This is scientifically impossible. To believe this requires a degree of wilful ignorance that is indefensible.

Therefore the entire WT theology is based on a lie.

The bible is not inspired of god. It contains errors and significant contradictions. It advocates a morality that is thoroughly disgusting. Jehovah commanded genocide, mass child murder, kidnap, slavery and rape. Worshipping this moral monster is beneath your dignity.

The greatest wish of every JW that 99.9% of the men, women and children on the planet should be destroyed immediately so that they can live in a Disneyesque utopia. That is psychopathic and dehumanising.

Please don't expect any congratulations for noticing that they also knowingly expose children to attack by pedophiles.

This is difficult to defend at work when others know of my beliefs

Why would you even think about defending it?

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

cofty

Thing is, you can experience different states of consciousness, what it's like to be a rock for example - ballistic

Yes we usually call that being dead.

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

cofty

Just listened to David Chalmers talk.

Panpsychism is analogous to the way christians waffle meaningless platitudes about god being "the ground of all being".

Asserting that consciousness is the basic property of all matter is nothing but a linguistic slight of hand that sounds clever but actually contributes nothing to the problem of consciousness.

18

God is not the creator

by venus in

every theory (including darwin’s) primarily proves someone has to design a theory; every product primarily proves someone has to design it.

when neil armstrong and buzz aldrin landed on the moon it primarily proved intelligence of many people had to design that moon-mission.. 1) if every machine primarily proves someone designed it, then a much more complex, wonderful, and living machine with reproductive feature would mean the same: someone with corresponding ability, of higher energy, designed it because effect explains the cause just like harvest explains the sowing (whether you saw sowing or not).

science shows human body is like a complex machinery with many departments/systems (such as respiratory, digestive, cardiovascular/circulatory, renal/urinary, endocrine, nervous, musculoskeletal, integumentary/exocrine, lymphatic/immune, reproductive etc.

cofty

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University Cult...

15

Angry the BBC covered J.W. child abuse on the national TV news at 1pm but not 6pm or 10pm

by Isambard Crater in

did the j.w lawyers gag the bbc or something?

not even newsnight covered it.

it was given 3 minutes every hour on the 24-hour bbc news channel though i guess..

cofty

The WT have no power to gag the BBC. Truth is a valid defense against accusations of libel.

The coverage yesterday was excellent.

44

Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me

by Doug Mason in

according to the watchtower:.

who received the ransom payment?.

why did the ransomer need to be paid?.

cofty

We still sin, get sick and die - truthseeker

Still playing Devil's Advocate...

The problem is that you are still thinking like a JW about physical and material rewards. The christian gospel was about forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with god in this life.

Has the Watchtower ever given a straight answer to the question: who was the Ransom paid to? - SBF

I think their answer to that is similar to classic theism. Ransom is just one of many metaphors used to describe the "work of Christ" on the cross. It is a mistake to push a metaphor too far. The key point is the price paid to release believers from sin. The NT doesn't answer the question of who it was paid to but if you had to answer it would probably be Divine justice.

44

Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me

by Doug Mason in

according to the watchtower:.

who received the ransom payment?.

why did the ransomer need to be paid?.

cofty

The message, kerygma, of the early church was not about petting pandas in paradise of even playing harps in heaven but about forgiveness of sins through faith in the "work" of Jesus.

Here is Paul's message in Antioch ...

“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses." - Acts 13

The WT teaches a different gospel of their own invention.

44

Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me

by Doug Mason in

according to the watchtower:.

who received the ransom payment?.

why did the ransomer need to be paid?.

cofty

Why not just forgive the sin? Even if you must punish Adam and Eve why punish the children that havent been born yet?

Christians don't fixate on Adam in the same way, that is a JW thing.

Adam was more like a representative of humanity. The focus in the gospel is on our personal responsibility for our actual sinful actions. For those we deserve death but the price has been paid on our behalf by Jesus.

The idea of vicarious punishment is crucial - pun intended. It was central to the Jewish sacrificial system where the blood - representing the life - of sheep and goats stood in place of the lives of sinful Hebrews. Jesus became the "Lamb of god that takes away the sin of the world".

The gospel as preached by the early church was about a restoring of relationship between god and the penitent sinner in the present life. It was about spiritual restoration as opposed to the JW gospel which is materialistic in nature.

Disclaimer - I am not defending this idea as either rational or moral.

20

BBC: Victims 'told not to report' Jehovah's Witness child abuse

by Lostandfound in

today on bbc news site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42025255 sorry about typo in heading big story on bbc news in uk.

cofty

Pressure is growing.

44

Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me

by Doug Mason in

according to the watchtower:.

who received the ransom payment?.

why did the ransomer need to be paid?.

cofty

The non-JW christian gospel simply ...

A perfectly righteous god cannot overlook sin. Therefore we are alienated from god by our sin.

Sinless Jesus took on himself all of our sins and vicariously received the punishment for them on the cross. "He who did not know sin he made to be sin for us..."

God could then be righteous when he declares sinners to be righteous whose penalty has been paid by Jesus.

Disclaimer - I am not defending this idea as either rational or moral.