Posts by stuffwotifink

75

Lurker trying to gain clarity

by questioningmyfaith in

jw
friends

hello all, i would like to first say that i am basically questioning my faith in god.

i am not negative towards the wt at all.

so honestly i am to concerned with more ad hominem attacks towards the wt because i still love the organization and the people in it.

stuffwotifink

In your OP you said

I only mention this because I don't plan on engaging with anyone that just wants to talk bad about the people

and

I have already accepted that the WT is wrong about a lot of stuff. It doesn't bother me too much to be honest. I am more concerned with whether or not I believe in god.

But then you only respond about the WT and you ignore any of the numerous people who actually engaged with your 2 queries.

I'm not saying that this makes you a dishonest and snake tongued WT apologist.
It just makes you look like one.

79

Death is not something to be feared!

by iconoclastic in

science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

stuffwotifink

When used skilfully, however, it's really handy for getting morons to STFU.

Sure, that'll do it. I just agree with whatever the hell they are saying, straight faced, in the most oily way I can. Works a treat for ending the interaction.

79

Death is not something to be feared!

by iconoclastic in

science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

stuffwotifink

There may not be a "Why" in the sense that you are using the word OP.
Mankind does not know.
Nobody claiming that there is a "Why", has ever been able to elucidate to the rest of the world a "Why" that's sufficient, never mind come up with one that's also necessary.

Unless you can show a good reason for believing there even is a "Why" to be puzzled over - what is the purpose in doing so? It may well be akin to asking how many corners a circle has.

I've never understood why people are impressed when asked a question they can't answer. It is hardly a mark of the question's merit...

"What has it got in its nasty little pocketses?"

12

Parrots Turn Carnivores.....Media Article ..Sure to get J.W.`s all excited .

by smiddy in

the first part was a heading in the herald sun newspaper tues.sep.15 ,2015 melbourne victoria .. , lorikeets and other parrots are becoming meat eaters---and researchers want to know why.. griffith university professor darryl jones has heard the herbivorous bird was eating mince left out by bird feeders in brisbane (australia ) "in two weeks i had about 500 emails from across the country all saying lorikeets were eating meat" he said.. that will surely get the faithful thinking the big "a" is almost upon us.. in the 1960`s i was told that buzzards and other carnivorous birds were laying twice as many eggs than was normal proving the big "a' was almost here.. here we go again.

smiddy.

stuffwotifink

You just reminded me of a number of "seriousface" conversations I had with dubz about how the seagulls that come into cities because of the dumps - are a bird which will eat carrion! "GASP!" And that totally counts and stuff... right?

The stupidity of it would make me blush if I had any shame left.
"Look, a seagull, that must mean it's The Truth."
Grasping after straws.

9

Knowing good and bad and being judged for it...

by purrpurr in

the belief is that god created the tree of the knowledge of good and bad right?

but then forbid adam and eve to eat from it because if they did they would understand good and bad.... the belief also is that either at death or armageddon we will be judged as to whether we have been good or bad.... so it seems that god did not want humans to have the knowledge of how to be good or bad in the first place but still wants to judge them on it?!?.

i always thought when reading that part of the bible " what would have been so wrong for humans to have that knowledge in the beginning?

stuffwotifink

Never made sense to me.
If we accept that we deserve whatever god does to us because we know good and bad... Wouldn't that also mean that Adam and Eve don't deserve punishment because they didn't know good and bad when they ate the fruit, only after?
Never mind the fact that he then judged the whole of mankind on the moral choices of a creature he made amoral.

Seems like Yahweh holds people to the letter of the law, not its spirit. And was doing so even before he gave the law! I guess Yahweh never read Romans 2...

79

Death is not something to be feared!

by iconoclastic in

science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

stuffwotifink

"Well, you were wrong."

Sweet, I can live with that.

"I dunno, by correcting your mistaken belief, I guess."

When I'm being a smart arse I guess I should be more pointed, I meant in regard to the comment I'd already made, I could hardly have done so retroactively, after all. Seems pithy wit is not my forté, dagnabbit.

"I never made any claim about the existence of teleological answers. That's where you're going off the rails."

I never claimed you made a claim. I simply asked if the claim was not implicit.

I am quite happy to accept your word on the matter. It seems my attempt at specificity has come across as argumentative or picky... Or something the like.
I still think that my misunderstanding is understandable - given the context of the statement - But am happy to stand, as I said, thoroughly (I always want to spell that "thouroughly") corrected as to your intended meaning.

Hmm, in case that sounds a little mealy mouthed to you (a la JW.borg), which it does to me: I accept your correction, you know what you meant far better than I.

23

The folly of Watchtower's theodicy. Or, why would an all-powerful and all-wise God need to justify his sovereignty through suffering?

by Island Man in

watchtower says that evil and suffering exist at present to vindicate jehovah as being the only one qualified to govern; to bear witness to man's inability to govern himself independent of god and under satan's direction.

the claim is made that the questions raised by satan regarding god's motives as universal sovereign can only be answered by allowing humans to see the evil and suffering that results when man lives independent of god's protection and direction.. watchtower and jws seem to think that this is the best theodicy in the world.

but there are some serious flaws in it.. 1. such a theodicy suggests that all perfect and intelligent creation, up until the advent of adam and eve, did not know god and his ways well enough to be confident that his motives as universal sovereign are pure.

stuffwotifink

"Remember those that are resurrected can not have sex, they can only look and wish"

In a world without clothes too.

79

Death is not something to be feared!

by iconoclastic in

science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

stuffwotifink

"I didn't mention philosophy."

I did.
I'm aware what begging the question is, formally - but thanks anyway.

... Either your point stands upon the shoulders of the assumption (and silent claim therein) that there are no teleological answers - Or it does not. (Remember, context, I'm not claiming you claimed it)
If it does, which it seems to quite baldly, to me; you would be ignoring the point being communicated to you.
No doubt it is a big "If", but it is what motivated my comment.
If your comment doesn't rest upon that point - it is as redundant in this thread as a comment saying "blue skies sometimes have clouds"... If it is in any way a response to the OP, the implication is there.

"Regardless of what he meant, he was wrong."

Nice. Just, yeah, nice. Good luck with that.

"Perhaps you should discuss what I actually wrote instead of construct a faulty argument around what you mistakenly think I wrote."

I was quite clear about the fact that I was questioning an assumption I believed you rested your statement upon, not accusing you of expressing said assumption. Perhaps you also should take care.
And honestly, really, if I did "mistakenly think" you wrote something, how on earth would I be able to "discuss what I actually wrote" with you?
I'd be labouring under the misapprehension that I was doing just that.

Whatevz yo, have yourself a good one.

23

The folly of Watchtower's theodicy. Or, why would an all-powerful and all-wise God need to justify his sovereignty through suffering?

by Island Man in

watchtower says that evil and suffering exist at present to vindicate jehovah as being the only one qualified to govern; to bear witness to man's inability to govern himself independent of god and under satan's direction.

the claim is made that the questions raised by satan regarding god's motives as universal sovereign can only be answered by allowing humans to see the evil and suffering that results when man lives independent of god's protection and direction.. watchtower and jws seem to think that this is the best theodicy in the world.

but there are some serious flaws in it.. 1. such a theodicy suggests that all perfect and intelligent creation, up until the advent of adam and eve, did not know god and his ways well enough to be confident that his motives as universal sovereign are pure.

stuffwotifink

It always got me that after all this suffering and woe... After mankind Finally understands and can see how much we need god to rule over everything for us... Once the point is made for all time, never to be questioned by mankind again...

"The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

It will all be for nothing - because nobody remembers the lesson learned. Well played Yahweh, well played.

79

Death is not something to be feared!

by iconoclastic in

science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

stuffwotifink

"In science, "how" and "why" are the same question, "how"."

Hmmm.
In philosophy, they are not. Teleology anyone?

The OP is fluff, nowt but the very worst pseudo-intellectual kind, IMO.
However, calling "how" and "why" the same question - is Begging the Question (gently, I'll grant), in this context.
Your answer assumes that there is no greater "Why", that there is in fact no purpose; only a cause or causes to be discerned through the scientific method... Then answers in the light of that assumption.

"How" and "Why" may very well be the same question in science, but that is hardly what the OP meant (the opening statement contains the claim that science cannot answer the why). Something you acknowledged your understanding of by typing "Your convoluted mess gets it wrong from the start".

Science avoids anything of a teleological bent, or reduces it to metaphor. To answer a teleonomic question with anything that begins "In science", is to dismiss the actual question being asked.

I'll infer that you implied and you can infer that I inferred. But I'll guess you understand my quibble (meagre though it may be)?
I don't think I put words in your mouth that were not there. 'Though if correction comes, corrected I will stand.