DogGone

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 193 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DogGone

• 
  42

  Copy of my DA Letter

  by airborne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is my first time posting here, although i have been a visitor to it for around a year.

  after doing a simple google search under "jehovah'switnesses" over a year ago, i found ttat.

  i was deeply unhappy with the congregation and decided to educate myself, and boy what an education i have gotten so far.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  That may be the best DA letter I have ever read.
• 
  52

  Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"

  by yogosans14 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  "he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.

  all [other] things have been created through him and for him.

  " (col. 1:15-17, for context.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  How do you feel the discussion ending with 1 Corinthians 15:27 plays with this argument from the evangelical perspective?

  When it says "all things" or "every name" is it not evident it is with the execption of God? Or did Paul make a one time evidentiary appeal? Perhaps there are dramatic differences in context or linguistics that I am not getting.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Cofty, thanks. Looks like there are a few Sam Harris books I'll want to grab!
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Crofty,

  I've read a few works about game theory and the evolutionary underpinnings of altruistic behaviour, but I've never come across a scientific explanation of objective ethics; philosophical frameworks, sure. I'd really appreciate it if you could point me at some books you might recommend. I'm pretty weak on psychology and ethics, so I'd appreciate the pointers.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  BucketShopBill,

  Thank-you for distilling the debate. Great read. We are often guilty of attacking the low hanging fruit. Cobbleston is no "low hanging fruit".
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Simon,

  Love the question. I think your question was answered strongly by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling. His answer is the exact opposite of Earnest and is intellectually much more satisfying.

  The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac.

  The ethical is the universal....

  Faith... is this paradox, that interiority is higher than exteriority.

  Then faith's paradox is this, that the single individual is higher than the universal, that the single individual determines his relationship to the universal through his relationship to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute through his relation to the universal. The paradox can also be put by saying that there is an absolute duty to God; ...if this duty is absolute the ethical is reduced to the relative....e.g. love of God can cause the knight of faith to give his love of his neighbour the opposite expression to that which is his duty ethically speaking.

  ....In the story of Abraham we find just such a paradox. Ethically speaking his relationship to Issac is this, that the father is to love the son. This ethical relationship is reduced to the relative as against the absolute relation to God... The absolute duty can then lead to what ethics would forbid... this is shown by Abraham... the ethical expression for what he does is this: he hates Isaac.

  This is the "fear and trembling" which Kierkegaard felt his contemporaries lacked. Most current believers who would only believe in a God who conforms to ethics fall under this category. They may have something they call "faith", but it is not the faith of Abraham.

  I'm an athiest, though not a particularily strong one. However, I do have immense respect for the likes of Kierkegaard who understand and embrace the logical conclusions of faith. In my experience, few religous people truly grasp this and prefer to see faith as rational and as an expression of Universal Ethics rather than at war with it.

  If God says kill your son, you do it. If God says rape your son, you do it. And here is the monsterous elegance of faith. What a powerful and insane concept.

  So let us either forget all about Abraham or learn how to be horrified at the monstrous paradox which is the significance of his life...

  But, if one wants to market a cut-price version of Abraham and then still admonish people not to do what Abraham did, that that's just laughable.
• 
  109

  The Complete Scammer's Guide - by "Pastor" Russell (New Light!)

  by Focus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  most of us are reasonably familiar with reports of scandalous goings-on of that old jellyfish lecher, the founder of the watchtower cult, the one and only charles taze russell.. but, are these stories true?.

  this thread is going to be devoted to his allegedly scurrilous activities.

  so, bookmark it, please, bro' focus is in possession of noo light, and we're going to explore russell like you've never seen him explored before.. we're approaching his 100th death anniversary, and for all i know this virtual exhumation may lead to a real one.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  I didn't question your view or your overall point about Russell. I questioned one of your "proofs". This is a discussion forum, not a shut up and listen because Focus is the smartest guy in the room forum. A wise person would appreciate having arguments sharpened through criticism. The overall conclusion can be correct, even if one or two points must be discarded.

  Since you brought it up:

  Your first point was that the story has credibility; Ross had means, money, and motive. Definitely, that belongs on the evidence pile. Your third point was that the WTS has had over 100 years to provide contrary evidence and has not. You also state that the WTS would have seized on even a word being untrue. I don't have any certainty about what the WTS would or would not do, so I'm discarding that statement. However, the general point that the WTS has not responded to the Eagle's coverage but has attacked the Ross pamphlet is persuasive, at least to me.

  Your second point is that with "reductio ad absurdum" you can arrive at another "proof". I criticized this and you pointed out that there are different proofs. It would be unfair for me to demand "proof" to the standards of mathematics. I agree. However, your so called "proof", in this instance, would not stand up, not even in a civil trial. The problem with your "reductio ad absurdum" is that you didn't bring the "absurdum". The whole point of this logical tool is to prove a point by showing that the opposite is completely absurd, illogical, and incredible. Therefore, with "reductio ad absurdum" you have to, out of logical necessity, accept the opposite is true or accept a truly absurd possibility. This is not mathematics.

  It is not at all absurd to imagine that a publication would risk libel, court challenges, and loss of reputation in order to publish a sensationalist story against someone with whom they have had a public battle. This, after all, is shortly after the nadir in New York journalism known as "Yellow Journalism". Falsehoods, libel, and exaggerations were, for a long time, the order of the day.

  I feel I need to say this again. This does not make your overall narrative invalid. You have pointed out recently that you have read a great deal from this paper around the same time period and find it credible. I take your word for it. It all adds credibility to your narrative. However, I recommend you discard the lack of a libel suit as any sort of "proof".

  This line of arriving at "proof" is popular, see if any of these sound familiar:

  - Obama must have been born outside of America. Trump and other birthers were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that what they say is absolutely accurate. If Obama had proof that would stand up in court he would sue for libel.

  - Bush must have known about 911 in advance. Authors of the many "truther" books were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that what they say is absolutely accurate.

  It doesn't follow. It isn't even a remotely credible argument. I’ll use the logical tool on you. It is absurd to believe that in every case, each and every time there was a published falsehood about Russell, a public libel suit has been pursued by Russell or his associates. Therefore, it is logical to agree that, at least on occasion, such libel suits were not filed when falsehoods appeared.

  Stick to your other evidence. Don't present the lack of a libel suit or the risk of one as some sort of guarantor of absolute accuracy.
• 
  109

  The Complete Scammer's Guide - by "Pastor" Russell (New Light!)

  by Focus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  most of us are reasonably familiar with reports of scandalous goings-on of that old jellyfish lecher, the founder of the watchtower cult, the one and only charles taze russell.. but, are these stories true?.

  this thread is going to be devoted to his allegedly scurrilous activities.

  so, bookmark it, please, bro' focus is in possession of noo light, and we're going to explore russell like you've never seen him explored before.. we're approaching his 100th death anniversary, and for all i know this virtual exhumation may lead to a real one.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Focus,

  Using reduction ad absurdum, as they were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that the article is absolutely accurate.

  Actually, it does not follow. You don't actually think that because a publisher could be threatened with court action, lose reputation, and lose money that therefore, as a matter of logical necessity, they must be telling the truth? You don't really, do you? I won't insult your intelligence by continuing this rather obvious point.

  What you have is evidence and lines of reasoning. Present them as such. EdenOne is expressing that further hard evidence is warranted, at least in the opinion of Eden. You may, of course, respctfully disagree.
• 
  44

  New Financial Arrangements

  by Joe Grundy in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  dear friends.

  i never was a dub.

  i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  I sure hope so, Frankiespeakin.
• 
  44

  New Financial Arrangements

  by Joe Grundy in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  dear friends.

  i never was a dub.

  i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  I have no reason to suspect the WTS does not have competent financial, tax, and legal advisors. I'd suspect they would bring in outside experts to vet a reorganization of this nature. There are many firms who provide expertise on liability shields and the like.