Jonathan Drake

Joined

• started 28 topics
• posted 710 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jonathan Drake

• 
  303

  The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Surely, you have to admit that both interpretations are plausible.  
  

  For sure, as I said on the previous page and once before, there is a serious communication issue existing if these interpretations can be reached. Modernizing the language in a way that more directly emphasizes the view intended and brings the book into a new more modern understanding is certainly necessary. But to ignore the fact that the issue is one of interpretation, and therefore first and foremost a problem with the individual who thinks these things are okay, throwing all the blame on the book completely, is just bonkers.

  rewrite the book and make it say the most peaceful directives of any holy book now or to come and people who want to cause chaos will find a new reason for its justification. I've been called naive several times in this thread, but I think THIS is naive, thinking the only reason these people do what they do is because of a book. Come on. 
• 
  303

  The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  nothing about this subject is obvious

  
  The quran advocates hitting a wife who lacks submission - this is obvious. ( you agreed that hitting your wife might be ok sometimes)

  The author of the book was a child rapist - this is obvious.

  The book condemns everybody who does not believe the pedophile prophet to an eternity of torture in hell - this is obvious.

  First of all, the wife slap has nothing to do with submission at all. 

  Secondly, prove everything you just said with a first hand account. If you can not prove, with a first hand account, what the proper interpretation of the book is or what events did or didn't happen, then you are using a second hand account and it is hearsay that proves nothing. 

  its just your interpretation, to use your own argument.

  we are arguing opinions, and it's a waste of time.
• 
  303

  The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  You are both using this word, "obvious" freely despite the fact that nothing about this subject is obvious. You're talking about a series of events and a group of people and some specific people who are between 1,415 and 4,000+ years in the past... Lol

  
  

  the best thing you can do is form a hypothesis that will never have the opportunity to be either proven or disproven unless we invent time travel. Because the only evidence EITHER side has is second hand hearsay. So if you want to talk about what is obvious, the only obvious thing is that we are both arguing different points of view that will never, ever be able to be proven - EVER. 
• 
  303

  The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  coftya minute ago

  You are the only person who thinks you have shown the quran is not a handbook for hatred, intolerance, violence and misogyny. 

  I think we agreed on a previous page however, that it would be best if the books linguistics were modernized to make its meaning more obvious so as to thoroughly set aside any opportunity for drawing such extreme conclusions. I do agree this should happen, because I will concede the average reader of the Quran is not going to put in the research to see what it was talking about when it says the things it says- so it should be amended so as to make this clear. Because I won't deny people do reach the conclusions you are positing, and this should be dealt with by some kind of reform instead of met with being ignored and hoping it goes away.

  we established this previously.
• 
  303

  The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  the problem has never been the books. The books didn't direct these people to do insane things

  Yes they do. You are denying the obvious. It's getting embarrassing.

  
  

  Well at this point we are getting back to square one here. I've shown very effectively how and why the Quran does not direct people to kill. The one refusing the obvious is not me. The fact is some of you are CHOOSING to reach the same conclusion ISIS does when reading those verses while others CHOOSE to reach a very different one. But the issue isn't literary, the problem is misuse of CHOICE which is something every reader of the book controls- not the book itself. So regarding this, I have thoroughly addressed in previous pages and will not repeat it.
• 
  303

  The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  
  

  Viviane3 hours ago

  im not talking about the cults, just the books. I've said this I don't know how many times. 

  The books are about a middle eastern death cult that has evolved into a global death cult. They are inseparable. Saying over and over they are not the same doesn't make it true.

  Man this thread... 

  So the problem with this statement, and I know that you know history because you've elsewhere proven you are familiar with it, is that the books came first. The cults were a later development, the sects were a later development - and these formed because of one man or a small group convincing other followers of the books that they meant something or were saying something that is absolutely insane. Upon this reasoning the, as you are calling them, "death cults" formed. But the fact is that not everyone draws the same conclusion from the books as these radical Muslims or the extreme Christians. You surely must know this, and the fact being true shows that (while the books could use some updated jargon and culture) the problem has never been the books. The books didn't direct these people to do insane things, the people reached these conclusions all on their own and of their own reasoning and efforts. 

  For this reason, they are separate because the fact that there are a vast majority of followers of these books that don't agree with the crazy people shows the book is not the issue.
• 
  57

  New Caleb video uses fearmongering on children

  by Jonathan Drake in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  check it out.

  literally the message is if you don't pay attention at the meetings you could die.

  how insane, i feel like this must wake some people up..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Take a look around at all the religions of the world and the utterly crazy crackpot ideas they are based on. The ability to indoctrinate is not dependent on logical arguments, it's on repetition and authority and they are being bombarded with both.
  

  This is it exactly. They just keep   with the same message, there is no flexing of the ability to "reason." BTW Simon, when I watched this video it did hit me just how accurate your nazi Germany's comparison really is despite my previous disagreement in the other thread. This is exactly the same as Hitlers brainwashing propaganda videos. They get you to turn off your reasoning and just listen and agree and blindly follow their will and reasoning. Now they are doing it with children via Caleb. 

  The following is from Mein Kampf

  "Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."
  

  Scarily comparable, no? There's more:

  "Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."
  

  Taken quotes are from:

  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda
  

  The way Hitlers propaganda policy compares to Watchtower is really scary IMHO.
• 
  17

  Bible is true in some vital matters!

  by abiather in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  while there are many interpolations in the bible (such as john 3:13 .... .. ) which can be ignored, there are very meaningful verses too in the bible such as ecclesiastes 4:1; 8:9 which states: man has authority over another to his detriment, they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors..

  let us make a comparison of humans (in general) with lower beings, or even with inanimate things!

  many people earn, spend, sleep, and finally go into the deep sleep of death, which is no way better than that of a stone or any animate being, which remains unaware of its self, origin, objective of life, final destination and macrocosmic surroundings.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Scientists are now almost in the final stage of developing full-fledged, autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AI) that could probably spell the end of the human race, fears even Stephen Hawking!

  Utter untrue drivel.

  I agree with viv. When I read this part of your op abiathar I thought this was rather.. Forgive me but, uneducated on what a.i is. Unless something has changed in the last 10 years (which is admittedly possible), a programmed a.i can only "learn" or explore options within it's already programmed restrictions. So for example, a robot programmed to serve tea can learn new teas, better brewing methods, fancy presentations, factual information there of- but tea will always be there world. They will never wonder what a gun is or what happens if they pointed it at a human, because that is outside their a.i parameters.
• 
  303

  The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @viv

  im not talking about the cults, just the books. I've said this I don't know how many times. 

  Simon said something to me in a pm, and I think elsewhere in the thread possibly, that I think we should all just take to heart. I don't remember his exact words but his point was everybody hears different things and messages from the same thing. I.e., you guys can't separate the cults from their books so you keep saying I'm defending islam or talking about Muslims or Christians and while I have mentioned them on the side the thrust of my comments was concerning the books not the people. I'm reading a verse and seeing the words as they are saying something very clear while, apparently, others are drawing very different conclusions. 

  Lets just let it be, we are beating a dead horse here. If you've all read these books and think they say something different than I do, and are ok with this and believe you are 100% right and there's no room for doubt you got it wrong then there's no point in further discussion. It'd be better just to let it drop and not let any rifts form between us and/or any readers that disrupt the forum somehow. aside from you viv, because I think I will just dislike you permanently. I respect your willingness to discuss and read and research but I really dislike you greatly - and that's okay, I don't have to like you or you me. I've actuslly agreed with several posts you've made elsewhere, so as long as we can dislike each other but still be MOSTLY respectful, I think we can get along.

  
  

  so as I said earlier in this thread, let's just disagree and let it end?
• 
  57

  New Caleb video uses fearmongering on children

  by Jonathan Drake in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  check it out.

  literally the message is if you don't pay attention at the meetings you could die.

  how insane, i feel like this must wake some people up..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @Morpheus

  the title is, "pay attention at the meetings"

  its at the bottom of the front page of the site.