Posts by Jonathan Drake

18

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses do this?

by runForever in

jw
friends

why do jehovah's witnesses as individual members readily think that apostates are having a sweeping mass delusion?

if some jw's have known you for a long time do they really think you based everything on some random delusion you randomly had instead of confirming the information?.

it's quite retarded even the bible itself is contradicting them in jeremiah about the 70 years.. i know some know, and some choose not to know but what about the rest?.

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan Drake, while I can't answer for what the opening post means, I can comment on what you are asking. JW's are taught that the "machinations of the devil" are so slick and so powerful that, yes- apostasy can be just like a disease you can catch from someone infected by listening to their words.

Thats what I think he meant, I've not been accused of it yet but I'm sure it's coming. I was going to say that it really makes no sense, if that's what he meant. Everyone starts to doubt for different reasons, and most experiences (not all) that I've read involve a scriptural example of something that goes against a JW doctrine. Its like they are saying this "disease" comes from the bible itself on these occasions.

18

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses do this?

by runForever in

jw
friends

why do jehovah's witnesses as individual members readily think that apostates are having a sweeping mass delusion?

if some jw's have known you for a long time do they really think you based everything on some random delusion you randomly had instead of confirming the information?.

it's quite retarded even the bible itself is contradicting them in jeremiah about the 70 years.. i know some know, and some choose not to know but what about the rest?.

Jonathan Drake

Do you mean they think "apostates" all fall victim to the same delusion? Like its some hive mind of disagreement?

Im asking because I'm not sure I understand your post, and I have encountered people who think this - like "apostasy" is a disease and if you catch it you "think like one of them."

22

How do flood apologists explain these?

by marmot in

spear points dating to thousands of years before the flood (or even adam's alleged creation, for that matter) found preserved in situ among mammoth bones in naco, arizona.. or the 14,000 year-old footprint of a child at a mammoth hunting camp unearthed in a bog in monte verde, chile:.

the kicker is that this isn't even the oldest evidence for human settlement of the americas.

since the wt loves to trot out frozen mammoth carcasses as "proof" that mammoths died in the flood, who were these mammoth eaters in north america?

Jonathan Drake

The problem you radiocarbon deniers run into is that multiple dating methods are used to determine the age of these sites, such as uranium dating and stratigraphy and they all point to the same age.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know that much about radiocarbon dating. But I've asked the same question in your OP and this is what I got. And it is factual (this much at least) so at the time I accepted it, it led me to think that I had to choose between believing carbon dating or believing the flood happened. I know at least I did preliminary research and reading about this water damage point, but I still want to read more about it.

do you have any book, or article suggestions?

40

Need advice on a comeback to my wife: when she is in cult mode she says faith without works is dead.

by goingthruthemotions in

so i have gotten into arguements with my wife in the past about this cult.

now a days after reading steve hassan books...i just try and avoid anything jdub with her.

try to keep her in authentic mode..(not sure she really has one).

Jonathan Drake

I would try using the account beginning at Acts 9:36 about Dorcas.

Dorcas is praised in the bible for her, "fine works." But these works are clearly spelled out for us in these verses and they absolutely do not include preaching. Yet it was for these Christian works that she was praised in the bible, resurrected, and left as an example to follow in Christian works. Why, if the works only partain to preaching, would the bible leave us an example of works to follow that includes no preaching at all?

I've used this approach myself, and they never have an answer for me. So it must get them thinking.

11

WT for March 15, 2015: “Consider the context”

by Doug Mason in

my study on the watchtower magazine for march 15, 2015 is available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_and_the_contexts_of_jesus__stories.pdf.

this watchtower presents jesus stories at matthew 25: the ten virgins; the talents; and the final judgment (sheep and goats).

Jonathan Drake

My greatest hope regarding this article is that witnesses will read the context of the cited verses in the article, "Loyally Supportimg Christ Brothers".

Every single scripture cited as proof of how we should all preach is out of context, context which re-asserted removes this requirement completely and shows that the requirement was only for the apostles and those who "ate and drank with Christ."

11

A Tutting of Christians

by andrekish in

a tutting of christians:.

a tutting of muslims:.

a tutting of jews:.

Jonathan Drake

Dude, you're spamming this forum and nobody is going to appreciate it.

why don't you step away from the computer, take a few deep breaths and address your anxieties, and come back with a real character and personality. (I mean this with all the tactful concern for your well being I can possibly muster)

18

Watchtower Accused of Intellectual Dishonesty

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

watchtower never learns.. i applaud dr. singh for speaking out and his open letter to watchtower.

http://jwalumni.org/2015/01/17/rama-singh-awake/.

Jonathan Drake

Yea, I hadn't had a chance yet to actually look up what it means to be intellectually dishonest. The post earlier defining it, and some research proves this is what they did.

Regardless of being a misquote or out of context, it's intellectual dishonesty and they should be held accountable.

22

How do flood apologists explain these?

by marmot in

spear points dating to thousands of years before the flood (or even adam's alleged creation, for that matter) found preserved in situ among mammoth bones in naco, arizona.. or the 14,000 year-old footprint of a child at a mammoth hunting camp unearthed in a bog in monte verde, chile:.

the kicker is that this isn't even the oldest evidence for human settlement of the americas.

since the wt loves to trot out frozen mammoth carcasses as "proof" that mammoths died in the flood, who were these mammoth eaters in north america?

Jonathan Drake

The way the explain it is with facts, such as water damage or exposure causing objects to date thousands of years older than the really are. This then implies, to me at least that, you must choose between believing or not with no reliable proof of either one.

The following is taken from a wiki page about carbon dating, and yes I know wiki isn't the best source of information; however, there are many other credible references to establish the effects water has on the objects being dated. So the conundrum becomes, if there was a flood, nothing pre-flood would date properly.

Other effects
If the carbon in freshwater is partly acquired from aged carbon, such as rocks, then the result will be a reduction in the 14
C
C/12
C
C ratio in the water. For example, rivers that pass over limestone, which is mostly composed of calcium carbonate, will acquire carbonate ions. Similarly, groundwater can contain carbon derived from the rocks through which it has passed. These rocks are usually so old that they no longer contain any measurable 14
C
C, so this carbon lowers the 14
C
C/12
C
C ratio of the water it enters, which can lead to apparent ages of thousands of years for both the affected water and the plants and freshwater organisms that live in it.[12] This is known as the hard water effect, because it is often associated with calcium ions, which are characteristic of hard water; however, there can be other sources of carbon that have the same effect, such as humus.[19] The effect is very variable and there is no general offset that can be applied; the usual way to determine the size of the effect is to measure the apparent age offset of a modern sample.[19]
Volcanic eruptions eject large amounts of carbon into the air. The carbon is of geological origin and has no detectable 14
C
C, so the 14
C
C/12
C
C ratio in the vicinity of the volcano is depressed relative to surrounding areas. Dormant volcanoes can also emit aged carbon. Plants that photosynthesize this carbon also have lower 14
C
C/12
C ratios: for example, plants on the Greek island of Santorini, near the volcano, have apparent ages of up to a thousand years. These effects are hard to predict—the town of Akrotiri, on Santorini, was destroyed in a volcanic eruption thousands of years ago, but radiocarbon dates for objects recovered from the ruins of the town show surprisingly close agreement with dates derived from other means. If the dates for Akrotiri are confirmed, it would indicate that the volcanic effect in this case was minimal.[19]

5

Questions from a non-catholic

by Sir cid fatos in

hello guys.

since i have few jw friends i thought a lot of jehova witnesses.

they are all nice guys.

Jonathan Drake

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090203105013AAizkOL

As for for everything else you said, I suggest buying a Strongs indexed interlinear bible, vines dictionary, and strings concordance - find your own answers. keep a journal. Follow the direction vine outlines in the beginning of his dictionary (or was it strong.... Well one of them said it) which is to look for frequency and consistency in word use before asserting meanings. What harmonizes with the entire bible is likely the correct understanding of what is meant. (Per strong and vine)

44

rama singh WHAT HE REALLY SAID, so you men can stop lying

by atheist_R_stupid in

"there have been repeated scientific challenges to the.

theory of evolution in the past, and the nonbelievers of evo-.

lution cite them as support for their case.

Jonathan Drake

@pistoff

im going to assume you're attempting to show me what the watchtower was doing, but I still don't think that's exactly the same.

You're attempting to say I'm using the bible to support its own idea when what I actually did was attempt to use the bible to explain how it might not be out of question for evolution to fit into scriptural explanations of life. I'm on evolutions side, and you're trying to discredit my argument in favor of evolution by saying that using a scripture to support evolution, which is also in the bible according to you, is circular reasoning. So, in essence, we are agreeing then that evolution just might be scripturally supported?

Also, yes, assuming we do live in a world of gods who made man, it would be a good comparison; because, in the mind of a believer in God, it is understood that this was a comparison that was being made there in the scripture by Christ not by me. So, regardless of what I think about it, I was merely positioning an already made comparison in their own book - not coming up with one myself. Therefore, however you may feel about the logic of it, since it wasn't of my own origination, it doesn't reflect on me in the slightest.

Further, your post appears to assert I was at some point talking about the creation of life, but I was not. This is also the failure of the awake journal in question. Evolution is absolutely, unequivocally NOT about how life began. It is about how life developed. So to be a proper simile in your post you'd have to say instead, "there is proof and historical record of the date and time and means by which the seeds of each tree used to build this house sprouted." Is there? No. However

there is proof and historical record of the building of a house.

there is also proof and historical record of how evolution developed.

Therefore there is proof and historical record of both, and that is a proper simile.

However, as creation and evolution are two different subjects, I completely agree that there is no proof and historical record of how life actually sparked.