Posts by peacefulpete

72

Question for Atheists

by RWC in

christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

what is your moral foundation?

You have not read my response.And I must truly question the idea that high schools are delving into such topics to any depth.
A primary problem is that you don't appear to understand the science involved.You can not be faulted for the latter, as few people do understand new physics.It does seem to break with logic.Thats why Einstein never embraced Quantum mechanics. This resulted in his lack of meaningful contribution in his later years.I don't pretend to understand it,yet I don't dismiss it either.
More importantly,your thoughts mirror those of Philip E. Johnson,a prominant creationist writer.He too accused today's scientists of metaphysical naturalism.He either intentionally or ignorantly interchanges the Ontological naturalism of Sinoza with the Methodological naturalism of modern science.I feel that you must yourself read a new book to see the distinction:"Tower of Babel"by Robert Pennock.Especially chapters 4-8.I suspect your fear of meaninglessness is driving you to conclusions that cannot be defended and impels you to villify honest and hard working scientists.

14

[?]TWO WITNESSES to secret sin[?]

by belbab in

jw
friends

num 5:20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you" .

num 5:21 then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman ), "the lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the lord's making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell; .

num 5:24 'then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness.

peacefulpete

Doesn't anyone wonder why in Numbers 5(as was quoted in the opening)a Husband(owner) could bring charges of adultery carrying a death sentense against his wife with no more than a suspition of guilt?No witnesses no evidence.And instead of dismissing the charge the priests forced the woman to drink a poison that will kill her (ostensibly only if she is guilty of course).There is no reason to believe that this actually ever happened,but the chauvinist primitive nature of the OT is obvious.

31

Disfellowshipped For Being Raped...

by Anne Marie in

dear post reader.... i was that young and pretty sister you may have seen...the one with "all those kids".

the one who stuggled to raise her children alone.

the one who was rarely considered as "wife material" because she was "damaged goods".

peacefulpete

The greatest burden I yet carry is my role in the disfellowshipping of a woman for oral sex.I was young and inexperienced and let the older men conduct the judicial meeting with me largely remaining silent.The numerous reversals on this topic scarred many lives as well.Many felt compelled to divorse mates that insisted upon it.Many felt indescribable shame for even wanting it.And some were even unfortunate enough to have come forward with guilt and found themselves DFed.This was a case where the husband was a nonwitness and very insistant. She was living in an impoverished Third world country where I was serving as missionary.She had two young kids,yet the direction was to cease this uncleaness leave home if necessary or be removed.For her there was no win.I will never forgive myself for not acting according to my conscience.Even then I felt this was wrong and none of our buisiness.But my training superceded my thoughts.Not all situations that hurt innocent people are as simple as the elders being cruel or insensitive.They too are victims of the program.Don't hate,learn and don't make the same mistakes again. Don't allow others estimate of your worth be yours.Maybe this too will help the healing.

72

Question for Atheists

by RWC in

christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

what is your moral foundation?

peacefulpete

I have no idea what is meant by "various clasifications of a first cause".

Cause and effect reasoning sounds like a good thing though.
I do know
a great deal of time and money has been spent by creationists to convince authorities that "creation science" is real science and should be given equal time in the classroom.Thankfully most often clear thinking has prevailed.It is not the place of sciences teachers to promote or even discuss any metaphysical theories.That is the role of the churches.This has been established in the highest courts.I imagine this "first cause" issue you are speaking about is similar.It is good to remember the present scientific hypotheses (while unproven)do utilize known physics and natural causation.Therefore I can forsee some teaches presenting these various ideas in the science classroom.Of course no yet unvarifiable explanation would be presented as the conclusion of the matter.
Just as the courts' rulings prevent supernatural explanations in the topic of speciation,I feel no similar supernatual explanation of a first cause can be in the science classroom.It is not a question of which is correct,it is a question of what can be rightly defined as science,and therefore taught as such. God is not a scientific hypothesis,It is a metaphysical one.Someone Isolated from the idea and trained to learn only with the scientific method would not arrive at the conclusion of a divine creator on his own.(We today have of course inherited a long tradition of belief that predates the scientific method.) For better or worse this should be the criteria of what is taught in science class. No doubt every student will hear about God in other forums.Perhaps in some ethics class the topic may come up and stir a lively debate wihout any charge of proselytizing. Does this answer your question?

82

I HATE THEM, I HATE THEM, I HATE THEM!!!

by AGuest in

jw
friends

father, please... forgive me.... dearest jw.com posters... may you all have peace!.

i wish to share something with you that i had no idea of until just a few minutes ago.

after listening to my lord direct me to go back and read and read and read, i must say, dear ones, that i knew robert and janet (jannie) bryant from shingle springs, ca, personally.

peacefulpete

Shelby,

Tell the world about your gift,Talk to people on the street don't be afraid.Everyone must know of you special abilities.The danger is in pretending you don't hear the voices, then you will feel even more alone.

72

Question for Atheists

by RWC in

christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

what is your moral foundation?

peacefulpete

Perry

If I had greater self control I would have left this discussion,but as it is....There truly is no one voice for humanists.Do not make the error of charactorizing a movement with a few quotations out of context.I am a humanist.I know what I feel.I meet every 3rd thursday with fellow humanists in my town for a topical discussion.Discussion implies a variety of positions.If you were a JW do you not remember the indignance you felt when head bobbing finger pointing born againers would assume to tell you what you believe?They only knew what they had been told or learned in some other second hand fashion.
To debate whether humanism is a religion is again a issue of semantics.Earlier I defined religion as a loose term.Yet when I generally use the word, I am as most are, referring to traditional religion.
I did not challenge your belief in a Divine first cause,and noone scientificlly can.Yet you appear insistant I did.The scientific community as a whole has wisely not attacked anyones belief in such.This is because our science does not yet allow us to pear into the matter adaquately.
What troubles me is that you have used this point as justification to cling to a whole edifice of theology.Conceding there "might" be an intellgent first cause does not mean it is scientific to believe in one. Or not to believe. And it sure does not mean support for belief in the Holy books used in traditional religions.In which are found the Benevolent Father Figure God you worship.
Since you had quoted the Humanist manifesto,I felt I would also.(dispite the fact that this does not represent all who call themselves humanists.and that I personally feel the work can be improved upon,and no doubt will be.)
"The right to believe and practice one's religion or belief without discrimination must be respected.The equivalent freedom,not to practice religion,should be afforded to religios dissenters,agnostics,and atheists,whose view deserve no lesser respect."pg45 Chapt.7
Of couse a conspiracy theorist would say that this is just a cover to conceal our true intentions; to make Orwelian zombies out of everyone!

Now I'm done.

72

Question for Atheists

by RWC in

christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

what is your moral foundation?

peacefulpete

Perry

You are on a crusade.I understand now.Quoting the most extreme humanist view to characterize the whole movement.No one cares whether you wish to believe in a divine first cause,noone wishes to take that from you.The concern of most moderns is that we not return to misusing science or silencing progressve thinkers to protect an untenable religious bias.I feel there is litte room left for discussion.All the best to you.

72

Question for Atheists

by RWC in

christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

what is your moral foundation?

peacefulpete

I'm for independant press too.If that is your point.
I always appreciate a forward thinking perspective.But rarely can such complex social questions be predicted.You do seem to favor pessimism, at least thats the impression I get.Thats great,the balance requires pessimism too.(read:caution)But to connect the future loss of democracy and freedom with atheism requires clairvoyance.I still have "faith" the essential goodness in men, as well as his tenacious love of freedom would make the outcome you fear unlikely.A much greater imminent threat to public good is irrationalism and superstition.

Gould's position he named Non-Overlapping Magisteria seems to embody my and millions of other's feelings.Science must strive to be free of religious (theist or not)influence.Likewise if religious (again theist or not)systems purport to use science to support it's authority they must be prepared to be challenged on these points. No one believes it is possible to isolate these magisteria completely.All human decisions involve a measure of both.However the more religions are exposed to science the more moderate they become.Inversely the science that respects people is far less likely to horrify us.
Again I ask what would you have us do?Suppress the reality that science has revealed because of some social imperative to believe in God?We must accept the future will not be smooth or perfect but the human race will survive this transformation from theism to humanism.Watch dogs like you will ensure no one opinion will unfairly dominate.

72

Question for Atheists

by RWC in

christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

what is your moral foundation?

peacefulpete

"religion is for weak minds"Gov. Jessie Ventura
Perry

What he trying to say in his boorish fashion is that it is much easier to formulate a code to live by when it is forced upon you by religion.Being so, most will choose this simpler road dispite intellectual misgivings.We all know this to be the case. Yet the realities of the 21rst century are irrepressibly eroding the traditional religious foundation that men have leaned upon for millenia.Will it be difficult to create a substitute?Yes.And I believe that it is not the job for humanists.As I suggested earlier I feel their role is limited to a stabilizing effect.To keep before the eyes of the world,logic,scientific advances and internationally recognized human rights. I got to believe you agree with me.So what are you saying?That humanists are bumbling fools who have no insight to add to the subject?Are you suggesting we all bow our knees and pray to a new god you are aquainted with?I'm not mad just confused, What do you espouse in your philosophy?What means of personal regulation do you wish to endorse? I do wish to know in all sincerity.

72

Question for Atheists

by RWC in

christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

what is your moral foundation?

peacefulpete

I may not believe in God but I do suspect computers are from the Devil. Hey guys can't we all just get along?

Sorry about my typeos, in my last post I meant to say that understanding the processes that resulted in our unique place on this planet, does NOT infer an approval of them. But I supose I'm the only one cares what I wrote.

I wonder if the arguement you two are engaged in is'nt essentially about interpretation. Somewhat like the debates over the Trinity I used to have.

Do'nt you think that the present uncertainties about humanist ethics (both of the authors and readers) is to be expected considering the relative newness of the field.There exists a terrific pressure for authors to provide some revolutionary new insight into human behavior,in paperback form.The humanist manifesto 2000 was to me a disappointment.It seems in my humble opinion to have tried to cover too many bases. Maybe amnisty international is on the right track by limiting public concern to serious infractions of human rights that an international concensess has established. This may be the true role for humanists.To be a stabilizing force in a world torn by ideologies. Religion may be simply a term for the attempt to formulate a more detailed pattern for life.In this sense religion is essential for society.The criteria used by such a religion would no doubt include subjectivity and perceptual norms.Thats OK.The blue team feels herbs and yoga,are the path to happiness, while the red team prefers sex and red meat.WHO CARES.As long as they agree that public welfare is the concern of everyone.After God is gone from the collective mind, the hunger to be led will continue.If the leaders can agree on only the most basic human rights,we will be just fine.I believe this is the position of the majority of those who call themselves humanists.If not it should be.