Excellent, in my opinion. You should not be forced to do something against your conscience. Forcing an atheist who works at a funeral home to say "God bless you, I will pray for you" or forcing a JW to handle blood, a Catholic to hand out birth control, or a Quaker to manufacture munitions is just wrong, in my opinion. Society works because we tolerate differences in each other and allow reasonable accommodation for differences. Asking another to perform the task is reasonable. Refusing to find a solution (like not referring a patient to a doctor who CAN provide birth control) is unacceptable for the same reason.
DogGone
JoinedPosts by DogGone
-
109
JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding
by cofty insainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....
-
-
-
52
Does the WT attract needy dysfunctional type of people?
by William Penwell inin your personal experience, do you think that the wt attracts needy types of people?
over the years, my experience is that they do attract very needy, insecure, dysfunctional, types.
i had an acquaintance that i just basically cut off.
-
-
DogGone
On the anecdotal side of things, well, I was a needy dysfunctional person and I was attracted to the JW's. Then again, I was a teenager which is when many are attracted to high control groups, and teenagers are usually needy dysfunctional narcissists. -
33
Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?
by Half banana ini find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
-
-
DogGone
David Jay, I'm sorry to admit, you confused me. I read you as saying that taking on contextual criticism of normative Christianity would be more effective than attacking an understanding of faith which does not adhere to basic exegetical theory. But, you then acknowledge that many (most?) believers entertain exactly such an understanding. Why would it be more effective to take on the understanding of the few than the many?
-
33
Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?
by Half banana ini find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
-
-
DogGone
Hi Perry, would you describe yourself as a fedeist?
Your post indicates you can or even should come to faith by studying and learning. Just wondering if that is the case and you are more along the lines of Calvinist thought that reason, rightly used, leads to faith or more along the Kierkegaard or Liberation Theology line?
If you reject such labels, I do understand.
-
33
Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?
by Half banana ini find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
-
-
DogGone
Cofty, thanks, I was afraid I wasn't clear. That may still be the case, but at least you sorted through my ramblings.
To put it simply, those of faith can retreat into Fideism. (Not all do, so this line of attack works well against those who think their faith is underpinned by logic, but that is not the Evangelical way, in my experience.)
-
33
Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?
by Half banana ini find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
-
-
DogGone
Cofty, with all deference to your incredible presence and influence on this forum, can you help me to understand what you are disagreeing with? You seem to be strengthening my point, not disagreeing with it.
I know your subjective experience with "stop going" casts into doubt their subjective experiences (mine does too), but I fail to connect that to my argument. It is likely because I am being daft.
-
33
Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?
by Half banana ini find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
-
-
DogGone
Half Banana, I respectfully think your challenge rather begs the question. The indefensibly of faith is the point. Bear with me for a second, if you will.
Time and again in film the protagonist is lost, absolutely unable to come to the defense of the love interest, partner, country, world and/or universe. All logic, all reasonable evidence indicates the cause is lost, the victory of the villain certain. But still, the character taunted by the villain has faith, despite all evidence and odds, that the outcome will be just. This is a recurring motif, a part of our collective heroic arc narrative.
As a popular example, in ROTJ the Emperor retorts to Luke's comment that his overconfidence is his weakness, "Your faith in your friends is yours!" To ask Luke to defend his position despite the impossibility of the situation, despite the evident destruction of his friends playing out before his eyes, well.... that rather misses the point of this faith, doesn't it?
As Jehovah's Witnesses we were taught a different brew. We were taught a faith based on carefully selected scriptures, on "scientifically" backed evidence for the signs of the times, and on the visible evidence of God's earthly organization. This is well summed up in the old NWT's wooden translation of John 17:3 that eternal life comes from "taking in knowledge" of the only true God. They have recently corrected this monstrosity, but the ideology that predates the rendering survives. The point is, we were taught that once "the knowledge that gives everlasting life" is grasped then logic will lead to faith in God himself, his plan, and the organization he is using.
Christian faith is typically not of this sort. It is usually a personal belief or trust in the justice of God, often through a personal revelation or experience. Many of the Church Fathers went beyond this, setting an amazing and elaborate home for Christianity in the blend of science, philosophy and logic called theology. But, that is not what makes most Christians "Christian" today, if it ever did. I don't personally know of a single Christian who arrived at belief through this theological route, though there were some who did in centuries past.
To ask a person of faith to defend their faith against all logic, evidence, and "knowledge" is akin to asking the artist to defend his ascetic form against all practicalities of function. I put "knowledge" in quotes because many Christians I know have had what they claim is personal knowledge, a subjective experience which informs their faith, a sort of "road to Damascus" moment. So, they would claim they have knowledge you find inadmissible.
(For the record, I have no faith and now find the whole enterprise a complete dead end. However, I don't think it is fruitful to pursue the sort of challenge you have thrown down for the reasons I have attempted to illustrate,)
-
-
-
DogGone
I have a one month old son, so it used to be Driving Miss Daisy. Now it is.. Waiting to Exhale.
-
1
Ghomeshi Trial
by DogGone inwe've had some lengthy heated threads about high profile us court cases, so i thought i'd start one about a sensational canadian trial going on now.
ghomeshi is charged with sexual assault by at least three women for hitting, hair pulling, and other physical abuse during romantic encounters.
his defense so far has been that this activity was consensual "rough sex" and these complaints are from jilted ex-lovers.
-
-
DogGone
We've had some lengthy heated threads about high profile US court cases, so I thought I'd start one about a sensational Canadian trial going on now.
Ghomeshi is charged with sexual assault by at least three women for hitting, hair pulling, and other physical abuse during romantic encounters. His defense so far has been that this activity was consensual "rough sex" and these complaints are from jilted ex-lovers. (That's my synopsis, don't take it at face value, Google it).
The trial is interesting as it is starting a national conversation about how alleged victims are treated by the system. It may also raise questions about how we collectively fail to uphold the presumption of innocence.
So far the first accuser has testified. She was pretty beat up by the defense. Many inconsistencies were brought up. She said she had no further contact, but it turns out she sent emails up to a year later. She even sent a bikini photo and asked him to contact her. She said after the assault she could not stand to watch him or hear his voice. But in the emails she compliments on his recent work and specifically said she was watching and listening to his shows. She didn't accurately remember the car the alleged hair pulling assault was in. She spoke about how her memories have changed as she has "sat with them" that has better memories now than when she gave her earlier accounts to police and the media. There are other items, which you can read up on.
So, the Judge has to determine if this is a confused victim who is credible, despite memory lapses and poor judgement, or if Ghomeshi when/if he testifies is more credible.
How do you feel about aggressive cross examination in these sorts of cases, necessary for our justice system or a re-victimization of someone who may have fuzzy memories stemming from a traumatic event?
-
10
Has anybody watched Making A Murderer on Netflix ?
by smiddy ini watched this 10 part series the other day and i was appalled at the investigation conducted by the police , especially the way they conducted their investigation with brendan vassey , his interrogation and obvious manipulation by the police officers , i couldn`t believe he was convicted , and sentenced to a jail term.. to any intelligent person with any sense of compassion could see brendan vassey was intellectually disadvantaged , yet these police officers exploited that failing of this boy .he should never have been convicted , his case should have been thrown out of court , the fact that he has been in jail over 10 years is a gross miscarriage of justice .. the conviction of steven avery seemed to me to be a set up also from what was presented on netflix ,.
i am no fan of steven avery ,i think he is a bit of a hillbilly type , that has had no problem with cruelty to animals , which i abhor ,yet i do think he has been railroaded in this conviction ,while the real killer and rapist goes free .. what are your thoughts .
smiddy.
-
-
DogGone
Billzfan23, I tend to mostly agree with you, after watching and then reading online. Only, I'm fairly convinced Stephen is guilty. The vehicle was found by an a warrant-less illegal search, called in, and then the quick search of the property was requested when Stephen was absent in order to ensure the evidence could be used. Brandon is really a victim, both by Stephen getting him involved and the terrible way the justice system pinned it on him.
That's my opinion, anyway. Nevertheless, the conduct of the County and the prosecution is enough for many people to claim there is reasonable doubt, and I do respect that.
For me, the circumstantial and undisputed evidence is pretty damning.