I agree but I wondered what the official JW stance is? A fully in/believing/hardcore JW?
goddidit
JoinedPosts by goddidit
-
10
Deserved worship
by goddidit ini don't believe in god.. if i understand the jw claim correctly, god exists, always did, always will.. just existed forever.. if this is the case then god didn't cause his own existence.. then why does he deserve any credit or worship?.
only jw answer i can think of is that worship is good for us, but this means we were created to worship!.
why would god do this?.
-
10
Deserved worship
by goddidit ini don't believe in god.. if i understand the jw claim correctly, god exists, always did, always will.. just existed forever.. if this is the case then god didn't cause his own existence.. then why does he deserve any credit or worship?.
only jw answer i can think of is that worship is good for us, but this means we were created to worship!.
why would god do this?.
-
goddidit
I don't believe in god.
If I understand the JW claim correctly, god exists, always did, always will.
Just existed forever.
If this is the case then god didn't cause his own existence.
Then why does he deserve any credit or worship?
Only JW answer I can think of is that worship is good for us, but this means we were created to worship!
Why would god do this?
Looking for an answer to both the above questions please. Thanks.
-
30
Accidentally Leaving a Flash Drive in the KH Parking Lot
by RayPublisher ini've been playing around with this strategy for awhile.
how could i crack the defenses and get a jw to read crisis of conscience, captive to a concept, etc., or just some reasoning points in general on blood, 1914, the history of the wt organization?
i want to help my brothers and sisters, i am still inside for a while longer and feel like i need to do something more tangible.. so i was thinking that if a flash drive was "accidentally" left on the ground in the parking lot.
-
goddidit
I don't understand the exact nuances of this situation but I once wondered about adding fake pages to one of their rags.
This was way before we all had computers. These days it should be fairly easy with photoshop and a good printer.
Maybe you could word something that doesn't ring their auto-reject bells but gets them thinking.
Just a thought.
-
2
A question on the genetic difference between human/chimps compared to that between other related animals
by bohm ini have a question on evolution i have been pondering.
is there a good measure of the genetic difference between human/chimpanzees that make it possible to compare "evolutionary gap" between humans and chimps to that between eg.
different kinds of fruit-flies, dogs breeds (or dogs-wolves, etc.)?
-
7
Adam & Eve
by goddidit indo jw's have anything to say about whether adam & eve were married.. if so, where in the bible?.
if not, isn't it a problem for them (jws)?.
-
goddidit
Do JW's have anything to say about whether Adam & Eve were married.
If so, where in the bible?
If not, isn't it a problem for them (JWs)?
-
4
Maybe this isn't an original thought
by goddidit ina phrase occurred to me during my musings.
it might serve as a challenge to the religious.
presumably it won't strike a chord with most religious minds but maybe some, who knows.
-
goddidit
A phrase occurred to me during my musings. It might serve as a challenge to the religious. Presumably it won't strike a chord with most religious minds but maybe some, who knows. Give it a try.
"Why is there god instead of nothing?"
-
17
How come witnesses can seem to be very friendly to the uninformed worldlies?
by dgp ini know that jehovah's witnesses are told not to be part of the world and not to have worldly friends.
i know that some witnesses do have friends.
but, what i'm curious about is how a witness could sustain polite and seemingly friendly interaction with worldlies and at the same time feel that these are not people s/he should befriend.
-
goddidit
What is actually causing the shell-shocked look then?
-
15
Argument from complexity
by goddidit inwe know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention.
look at snowflakes.. as far as i can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex?
evolution must be false).. can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?.
-
goddidit
Any doctrines you recommend?
-
15
Argument from complexity
by goddidit inwe know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention.
look at snowflakes.. as far as i can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex?
evolution must be false).. can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?.
-
goddidit
I did indeed mean to write 'without direct divine intervention' in my original question.
Sorry for the confusion.
But even if one's position is correct, and dubs obviously think there's is, it doesn't follow that all the arguments in favour of the position are good arguments.
And I'm not talking about so-called "irreducible complexity", just complexity. Yes, I'm simplifying but I'm dealing with a dub here so I have to.
Basically, if god can create a world in which snowflakes form from water due to chemical reactions and we assume a snowflake is more complex than water, then god could have created a world in which evolution could happen. So the dub says he didn't but can't use the argument from complexity to demonstrate that.
So how do I put that in a form a dub would grasp?
-
15
Argument from complexity
by goddidit inwe know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention.
look at snowflakes.. as far as i can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex?
evolution must be false).. can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?.
-
goddidit
We know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention. Look at snowflakes.
As far as I can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex? evolution must be false).
Can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?