a few comments from muddy waters and mummatron on another thread peaked my curiosity and led me to revisit some of the illustrations in the my book of bible stories.
i don't appear to have my old copy from when i was a child (thankfully), so i checked out the images over on watchtower.org where the entire book can be read online.
the images below are taken from what is displayed on that website, although it wouldn't surprise me if there are equally awful images that haven't been used.. so which of the images below are the most grotesque and inappropriate for children?
The overriding problem is not so much the pictures but what the accompanying, underlying message is giving out - the subtext - "this might be you if you don't do things 'God's' way." -AnnOMaly
I agree. And I also agree that these images in and of themselves did not scare me.
just wanna share this astonishing presentation.
enjoy.
Personally, I don't have enough knowledge regarding abiogenesis to form a proper opinion so I'm reserving judgment until I have a better grasp. But I do hate to see the theory of evolution misrepresented to include abiogenesis by default. SBC
This seems to be the position most militant athiests take on here.
When you make something up that is unknowable ,untestable and which does not accord with the observed evidence in one single way - i.e. something purely from your imagination - and then dare to class it in the same bracket as empirical evidence based science then no it is NOT a possibility any more than Harry Potter is a possibility and will be treated as the fairytale it is - children may however, discuss with wide eyed awe wands and talking animals.- Qcmbr
Abiogenesis has been tested several times, and it is only viable in very specific conditions. The question is, were those conditions actually present on earth? Or, do scientists just want to believe, even though it does not "accord with the observed evidence?" There is the second route of if simple organisms "seeded" earth from outer space. Either way, we come back to the same question for the "host" planet.
Is there any way to "test" for string theory? It's interesting that it proposes 10 to 11 dimensions in order for it to work, yet we have no proof or evidence whatsoever of said dimensions. I guess it's pure imagination then.
Science pieces things together and can make conclusions based on direct and indirect evidence. But, there are things science does not have the capacity to do. I believe that, given cosmological inflation theory, we will never seen beyond our light speed barrier of 14 billion light years. That means we have a whole other chunk of universe that cannot be seen, phenomena that may be unique to that portion of the universe.
It's sad to think we may never see beyond that barrier. We know there is more universe beyond what we see. We don't discredit it as imagination. All I'm saying is, just because science has given us some foothold on understanding our universe, doesn't mean it can give it all to us. And, call it god of the gaps, call it what you want, there is always a possibility of something greater than what we see.
I don't know if this video has been presented here before, but why does Richard Dawkins accept the possibility of aliens seeding Earth, and not that of divine intervention?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Creationism and ID are not "beyond science" as you rather pompously claim, they were never anywhere close to being science. They are faith based assertions based on arguments from ignorance.
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a fully-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem....Rigth now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "ireducible complexity" and "specified complexity" but as yet no general thoery of biological design" - Paul Davis of the Discovery Institute.
In other words, there is nothing to say except "goddidit." Once you come up with something positive to say bring it to the table. -cofty
I disagree. It is beyond science because, say divine intervention did happen in order to bring about life. How do you test the manipulation of the "right conditions for life"? Mind you, this is all that would have to happen in order for life to appear, do you agree? Have the precise right conditions?
just wanna share this astonishing presentation.
enjoy.
Creationism or ID could happily be considered if they would just make some damn predictions that could be tested but as long as they cling to faith then its not science. -Qcmbr
How the f are you supposed to test an entity or cause beyond what we can perceive/measure?
If that entity only caused the Big Bang, well how are you supposed to make a prediction on what it will do?
You're right, this is a realm beyond science, but it doesn't mean it isn't a possibility. Oh, and don't give me that spaghetti monster crap. Let's grow up here and speak civily.
i am having difficulty locating the recent printed statement that jws should follow the gb even if they think they are wrong.
would someone please let me know where that is?.
jt.
*** w92 11/15 p. 20 par. 8 Serve Jehovah Loyally ***
As Jehovah’s dedicated Witnesses, all of us must be loyal to him and to his organization. We should never even contemplate turning aside from God’s wonderful light, pursuing an apostate course that can lead to spiritual death now and eventual destruction. (Jeremiah 17:13) But what if it is hard for us to accept or fully appreciate some Scriptural point presented by the faithful slave? Then let us humbly acknowledge where we learned the truth and pray for wisdom to deal with this trial until it comes to an end with some published clarification of matters.—James 1:5-8.
paragraph 13 on.
Thank you for you well structured, systematically consistent comments, Blondie. It makes research all the more easier.
Something else y'all might want to look are the articles in July 15, 2011 WT, enter God's rest and it's subsequent article.
just wanna share this astonishing presentation.
enjoy.
Evolution could easily include the specialty field of how nonlife "evolved." But it's all just semantics. OTWO
Exactly. That's all I'm essentially pointing out. Evolution and abiogenesis are one in the same, no less so than macroevolution and microevolution are the same.
Or, with the new theory of everything science is trying to dish out; general relativity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics are all the essentially the same, be it combined through any of the string theories.
It's really all about the focus given on any particular discipline that leads us to semantics.
And I agree that just because we don't know what the beginning conditions for life were, that we must immediately discard abiogenesis. I'm just saying that, of necessity, if you have already discarded a supernatural intervention for life, then you must advocate for abiogeneis. Unless you propose "sporing", which would involve aliens and such. Ultimately it boils down to if you believe life can form on its own, or it can't.
Can I make myself any clearer?
just wanna share this astonishing presentation.
enjoy.
Ok, the point I'm trying to make is that abiogeneis and evolution are naturally complementary disciplines, correct? And that accepting evolution naturally should require accepting abiogenesis.
I am not here to argue creation. Merely the argument posed by this guy. His analogies at the beginning were absurd.
just wanna share this astonishing presentation.
enjoy.
I feel the analogy presented in the beginning isn't applicable. Of course no one would argue that the theory of relativity is wrong because it doesn't explain germs.
But, abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked. If we go back in time and see the progress of evolution backwards, we are arguing that life came about from non-life processes.
In this case, it really is abiogenesis OR creation. I'm just saying that if you defend evolution, you defend abiogenesis because by default you have already rejected creationism. So that means life must come about from non-life.
I don't know why the guy in the video get's hung up about that.
I think argument one is a valid question, because is there any evidence of non-complex life having ever existed? What is the most basic form of life we have today? In fact, he goes on to cite those scientists that disproved spontaneous generation and says no scientists today use spontaneous generation as an argument. Well, wtf is abiogenesis then, if not but a decorated version of spontaneous generation?
here is mine.. if you start with the pivotal date of 1000 c.e.
and add 1914c.e.
(because of jw's), then add 2012 (because of mayan calendar) you come to the date of 4926 c.e.. but bear with me just a bit cause this is not the "end" as of yet because we still have to factor in the mileage between miami and tampa.
I served myself a bowl of ABC soup on the seventh second, of the seventh minute, of the seventh hour, of the seventh day, of the seventh year of the Bulls winning the championship in '97.
The letters slowly began to converge and tell me:
In your left foot shoe, you will find the answer. Jah Power! (Some results may vary)
Taken a back, I was both frightened and puzzled for I had both my legs amputated when I was 2 years old. I blew on the soup to see if the oracles would bless me with another divine clue, but all I got was a headache.
I took a stroll on the veranda to clear my mind and sort everything out. Of all the people in the world, the ABC soup had blessed me with the forbidden clue about the "answer". For, the "answer" the soup spoke of, was the answer humanity had looked for since the beginning, when the end would come. Yes, it seems ironic that humans would look for the answer to their own desctruction, but the soup had spoken!
It came to me in a flash of vague, dirty brown light. A seagull pooped on my eye, and it was then I remembered where I had left my shoe at the age of 2. In a leap of faith, I sought the nearest Greyhound Bus stop, and began my perilous journey into New York.
It was there that I first came into contact with Mother Bethel, the oracle of failed prophesies. Of course, at that point in time, she was known as "The Truth, with a touch of New Light". I could have sworn I had seen a sale of a perfume by that name, but this did not distract my resolve. If she had "The Truth", I would venture to her lair.
The story only gets more and more stupider from here......
hi, i am new to studying with the jw's and would like to know they best way to start.
any suggestions?.
DylanBeam, have you begun studying yet? Obviously you will begin with the book, "What does the Bible really teach?"
The problem is Dylan, the Jehovah's Witnesses will not tell you upfront about their history unless you ask them.
Did you know they predicted dates where the world would come to an end? Dates such as 1914, 1925, 1975 are just some of the more prominent dates, but they set many other dates. They are not unique in date setting, the Adventists and Millerites that came before them did this as well.
They might explain what disfellowshipping is, and give you biblical precedents set, such as 1 Corinthians 5: 11-13
11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister [c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” [d]
and 2 John 9-11
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
But they fail to mention that it is not only Bible rules that will get you disfellowshipped, they have their own rules that need to be obeyed. This practice has torn many families apart, and if you stick around on this forum, you will see what I mean.
DylanBeam, an important thing to consider as well is the teaching of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. This is something you will almost without fail hear in every meeting you attend at Kingdom Hall. It is based on Matthew 24:45-47. The problem is, there explanation of it has gotten so out of hand, that they claim the Faithful and Discreet Slave is a group of 7 or 8 men in Brooklyn that control all the big decisions for the Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. And, the worse part is that if you disagree with what these men teach, or merely disagree that they have no basis for such authority, you will be in line for disfellowshipping, which means being cut-off from all Witnesses with a single anouncement.
I suggest you independently research shunning/disfellowshipping and the doctrine of the Faithful and Discreet Slave/Governing Body.
If you need any help, or have any specific questions, feel free to private message me at any time.
in watchtower teaching, what were the "anointed remnant" doing between the death of the apostle john and the coming of pastor russell?.
during all those centuries, there was no visible organization publishing watchtower literature so as to enable people to understand the bible.
there was no organized worldwide door-to-door preaching work being done (who assigned territories and kept track of time records, for example?).
Well, here is the problem. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/219900/1/WT-Mar-15th-2012-144-000-no-longer-a-literal-number
If they drop this, and the R&F believe it, which they will, then there is no problem. Your question vanishes and is of no significance.
This religion isn't about truth, facts, reality, etc. They have 7.5 million adherents that unquestioningly obey the Governing Body. When the Governing Body clears things up with New Light, the rank and file will fall in line.
