Saved_JW

Joined

• started 14 topics
• posted 89 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Saved_JW

• 
  24

  New hominid Species Discovered in South Africa

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  homo naledi has been added to our family tree but exactly where, is still to be discovered.

  read more here.... over 1500 fossils making up 15 separate individuals have been discovered in a cave near johannesburg.

  here are a few highlights of it's anatomy.... the skull was globular, like a member of our genus but the brain was small and primitive.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Addressing the question about human evolution:

  We really have to define first of all what it means that we are "evolving" many people make pragmatic assumptions that evolution benefits a species in some way.

  The problem with this is that inherent in that assumption is that evolution has a goal. There is no scientific basis to establish this. A lot of evolutionary theory is philosophy based on observation.

  IN fact, from what we do know of the DNA structure, we loose information. There is no model scientific or otherwise which will show DNA mutation that gains information. So are we evolving as humans? depends on what you mean by evolving. If anything we know we are loosing information in each generation. Mutations in the dna that loose information is never a good thing. Apperances and traits can change over time but we cannot say based on evidence that those changes result in different species.

  When we breed dogs, the same is true. We take away from the DNA and loose information. We can modify height, appearance, traits. But we can never modify the species nor can we add to the DNA.
• 
  50

  thinking of leaving

  by justme67 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am 46 and have been a jw for only 6 years.

  i was doing ok until about a month ago.

  we were having an international convention and i heard the brother that had to pick up 2 of the members of the governing body had to get a background check done on him and his wife.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  There is no honorable way to leave the organization. I really guess it depends on what you mean by "Best way"

  If the agenda is to leave the organization with the least amount of backlash and judicial rammifications would be to simply fade away. Stop going out in field service as a start, gradually only attend Sunday meetings, then leave completely.

  However lately the organization is cracking down on faders as well even going so far as to treat them as being disfellowshipped.

  In my opinion, its always to leave with integrity and truth on your side. Do your research as you are continuing to do. Jwfacts is a great place to compare watchtower doctrine and Biblical doctrine, focus on the inconsistencies within the organization's past, and within their own doctrines. Specifically what the bible says and how it contradicts with Watchtower doctrine.

  The lynchpin of the Watchtower is the 607 bce doctrine. The organization stands or falls on this axiom alone. If they are incorrect about 607 being the destruction of Jerusalem, this means the math leading up to 1914 is incorrect, ergo the day of inspection of the Governing Body is also incorrect. Everything depends on that doctrine. The website gives great detail on this. Also there are resources available that show how you can use only the bible and the Insight books to prove the chronology of 598 being the correct date, USING THE WATCHTOWERS OWN LITERATURE!

  If the truth is on your side, you can at least leave with dignity knowing you left on your terms, not theirs. Who knows, maybe you might have some witnesses in your congregation who are also questioning but out of fear do not speak up, you may be that voice for them.

  Since I have left, I have had the privlege of helping a couple of witnesses from my old congregation leave. They had the courage to actually call me and ask what really happened and not listen to the gossip.

  Anyways hope that helps.
• 
  41

  What's the story behind Adam and Eve and fig leaves.

  by jam in

  1. social
  2. family

  where they blind?

  nakedness is a sin between married folks?.

  that is so silly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Missing the point entirely.

  At the moment of creation everything was created Good. There was no seperation betwen God and his creation. In fact God dwelt with Adam and eve in the garden. No guilt, no shame. Unbroken relationship between God and man.

  After the fall sin entered into the world, along with it came shame and guilt. The covering of the fig leaves was really mankinds first act of religion. Because when we sin, we want to COVER IT UP, justify our actions. Which is exactly what they attempted to do. Eve blamed it on the serpant, Adam blamed it on the woman. They hid from God out of shame.

  They covered themselves up as a reaction to their shame before God. No longer were they pure before God, but fallen. No longer good. They made clothes for themselves to cover themselves up. God instead had to make a covering for them. This is the gospel in a nutshell. Man cannot justify himself or his sins through his own actions, but only God can cover them for man. One is religion, the other is grace.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Objective morality is about how we think about how to minimise the suffering - or promote the well-being - of conscious creatures

  what objective source did you use to define objective morality cofty? Is this a universal law? or did you just make that up?
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  I drew a clear distinction between "absolute" morality and "objective" morality that has NOTHING to do with anybody's personal preference.

  This is the answer to all of your previous post

  Whats the difference between absolute and objective morality. I need to know this so I can actually dialogue.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  we are living in the most moral, ethical, peaceful and fairest society in all of human history.

  1- To say that we live in the most moral society you must first assume morality exists. Secondly it has to be judged by that standared. If you are measuring morality by a standard other then God, you must first establish what that standard is, and measure society by it. [Moral and Ethical are redundant]

  2- Peaceful society: I dont know where you are getting this from, but we are barely out of the 20th century which has saw more bloodshed and loss of life then any century proceeding it.

  3- Fairest society: Do I really need to prove the case here. We live in a world where 1% controlls over 90% of the wealth. I could go on and on about fairness, and it would be very easy to dismantle this ideological fairytale of yours.

  The reality is that your "absolute" morality includes anything that your god deems good. According to your holy book "the god of Jesus Christ" sometimes favours genocide, infanticide, kidnap, rape, slavery, mysogyny and homophobia.

  Morality be divine fiat is no morality at all.

  As compared to what? The reality is that your "Absolute" morality includes anything that Cofty deems good.

  therefore morality defined by decree of Coty is no morality at all.

  For anybody reading your moral rants cofty, its easy to spot out your arguments are non sequitur. [ Premise: No moral absolute / Conclusion: Peaceful, Fairness, Ethical is Good and Genocide, infanticide, kidnap, rape, slavery, mysogyny, homophibia BAD ]

  Whats ironic is that you insist on there being no moral absolute, yet you use ethics as a positive basis to demonstrate that we live in such a great culture! [without actually demonstrating what ethics actually is by the way]

  Theists love to feel secure in the knowledge that there is an "absolute" standard of morailty out there, like Plato's essential triangle, by which all actions can be measured.

  Yet at the same time [ironically enough] you are MEASURING the morality of god by some unnamed standard yourself!

  To this I can only retierate your own words:

  It is a desire that belongs to the simplicity of our childhood.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  The truth is that there ARE universal abolutes of right and wrong for many things and we don't need a god to define that hurting children is wrong.

  By no means am I endorsing this practice. I think its disgusting and abhorrant.

  However the reason you say its wrong, and the reason I say its wrong, are two different things.

  You asserted that there ARE universal absolutes, but do not need to include "god" as that absolute.

  Might I ask... If God isnt the moral absolute, what is? [In your opinion]
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  We are living in the middle of a sexual revolution. Not unlike Ancient Rome.

  It was a culture that was very pornographic, and pedophilia was very much a common practice that was commonplace for adult entertainment. The purpose of a woman [wife] was to bear children and continue the legacy of the family, but the sexual entertainment came from whores and children.

  Roman religion wasnt so much focused on ethical right and wrong as we understand it today by a heavially Christianised civilization. Instead, Roman pantheism focused on Power, Fertility, and pleasure. This was the function of the gods and our human sacrifice needed to reflect those values.

  Even in that culture there was no basis to say that pedophilia was "wrong" or "right" it simply was...a fact of life. Yet another pleasure to indulge in.

  To bring this full circle, specifically American culture. We are in the midst of a sexual revolution. As we move into the Post-Christian era, I see that we are replacing the foundation of morality from judeo-christian values, to more of a post-modern value system which asserts
  "Everybody has their own truth" In other words, no absolutes.

  Mr. Dawkins comments in a way are very progressive and give a clue to what we will be experiencing in the next 10-20 years. I think pedophilia will be considered just another sexual orientation. Actually they already have a word for it.."Inter-generational love"

  By the way, by no means do I agree with Richard Dawkins, and as much as I cringe at the possibility of this happening, I have no doubt that in another 10 years, my moral objection to this practice will be considered bigoted.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Scientists shouldn't be allowed to talk about things except their subject of expertise?

  I wouldn't go so far as to say that. However i think it does become an issue when people who generally look up to him as an authority figure, will blindly accept his opinions on subjects that are not directly related to his field of expertiese.

  Like I said before, I believe Richard Dawkins moral opinion on pedophilia IS consistent with his worldview. Actually, I dont think is really goes far enough.

  The problem I have is when somebody deny's a universal moral absolute then at the same time, judges somebody elses moral opinion [be that sexual or otherwise]

  Without a universal absolute, we have no foundation to say that Pedophilia is or isnt wrong. Its simply an action prompted by the emotions of one or both parties involved.

  I believe Richard Dawkins unlike most of his followers, is actually consistent with the foundation of his worldview, inspite of those who morally object to his opinion.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  If you think about it. At least Richard Dawkins is being consistent. In a world where there are no moral absolutes, only subjective moral opinion, there is no foundation to say that any sexual orientation is absolutely right or wrong.

  All we are left with is personal opinion and feelings. The sexual desires of one individual differ from that of another. What is good for one, is repugnant for another. I think the bigger issue here is Richard Dawkins giving a moral opinion in the first place. Morality isnt the subject of science, neither is he an authority on the subject itself.