Posts by rem

25

Mere Christianity: logical reasoning

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

mere christianity: excerpt.

chapter one.

every one has heard people quarrelling.

rem

C. S. Lewis is a respected writer of children's stories and Christian apologetics, but I'm afraid that his logic isn't always sound, but is based on anecdotes, selective memory of history, and special pleading.

First of all, how can anyone claim that a person can disobey the law of human nature (assuming such a law does in fact exist)? By definition, a human could never disobey this law because anything a person does is following his human nature. There is no 'unnatural' act when it comes to humans. Is riding a bike 'unnatural'? Is lying 'unnatural'? Human nature includes these and all other things that humans do.

Also, ther ARE large differences in how other cultures now and in history have treated their fellow human beings. Morality and ethics are relative. Today we (most, not all in modern society) think Slavery is barbaric, mistreatment of women primitive, and killing of unwanted infants (already born) as unthinkable. Even today people have vastly different views on abortion, capital punishment, sex before marriage, extramarital sex, homosexuality, stealing, murder, war, etc. These issues are not black and white. There is no one standard that all human beings can agree on.

C. S. Lewis was writing in his own little world. He wasn't taking into account how things really happen today and in history.

rem

48

Turn back on God because of WTS or JW's??

by IWish4Truth in

jw
friends

in my opinion, it's one thing to not agree with organizations that impose certain rules upon it's members, but it's quite another to turn one's back on god himself because of disagreements.

is there not still some higher power out there who has the best interest of humans at heart?

how can it be denied, especially in these terrible times, that something or someone is gonna have to step in and take over and end this havoc.

rem

nowaytess,

You were doing okay until that statement. Now if you meant it in a general sense that all actions have consequences, then that is fine. But if you meant that these consequenses will come from god, then you are certainly not telling thhe 'truth'. You are telling your interpretation of an old book written by ancient, superstitious men. You have no evidence outside of the Bible to back your claim, so you cannot be speaking 'truth'. Objective truth would need observable facts to back it. In this case you have none. All you have are ancient mythical stories.

rem

14

NEWFLASH!!!! I'm Korah!!! (news to me at least)

by ashitaka in

jw
friends

my father called me last nite telling me that i was korah.

always nice to start off a conversation with.

then for an hour we tried convincing each other we were right.

rem

Ashi,

Ah, the Korah comparison. I wonder if the drama at the district convention this year had anything to do with that comparison? It was pretty obvious (it was about Korah) that JW's are to put the organization above their family ties. It made me sick - and even irritated my JW co-worker. Blatant propaganda and mind control. So blatantly obvious that hardly anyone noticed.

But the costumes were great! ;)

rem

14

not as popular as i once was.

by josephus in

jw
friends

i was never a really loved member of the hall.

i allways had to go up to people to talk to them, never the.

other way around.. however i did have freinds, and was treated well by most people.. now it seems i am "marked".. i have been snubbed twice last week, and met two elders, and one ex-elder as well.. only one an old mate wanted to talk.

rem

Josephus,

You are still popular. In fact you are famous. You are so famous that you are INFAMOUS!

Muhawhawhawhawhahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

rem, infamous in his own way

25

Whos Who

by Stacey in

jw
friends

can someone post the link to the whos who page?

.

thanks.

rem

Stacey,

It's down at the bottom,

But it's also right here --> http://jsefton.users1.50megs.com/jwcom.htm

Who knows where else that pesky link is hiding?

rem

45

Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward in

the story about the instructions jesus allegedly gave to his disciples before they were to set out on their evangelizing journey illustrates the type of contradictions which are found in the gospel stories.

in their two accounts of this event, the authors of mark and matthew disagree about whether jesus wanted the disciples to carry a staff with them.

mark tells us jesus told the disciples to go forth with a staff:.

rem

Perhaps you are being a bit literal with the "not both" thing. "Neither Staffs" does not mean "not both staffs" because that is not the whole sentence. The rest of the sentence is: "neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece." (KJV)

As you can see the "not both" (as you put it) refers to more than the "staffs" so the plurality is resolved. It's including the scrip, bread and money. Also, the last part of the sentence is explicit about two coats. Why not be explicit about two staffs?

It is tricky when you start to break down words into their root forms. Just because the roots mean one thing when separated does not mean you can force those independent meanings back into the word when they are combined. The word would probably not have the connotation of "not both" to a koine greek speaker, but something similar to the word "neither" that we use in English.

The NASB is usually renouned for it's literal translation, and here is how it renders the scripture:

"And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece."

I think the language is quite clear.

rem

11

Claims by Jehovah's Witnesses

by joelbear in

jw
friends

jehovahs witnesses claim to be happier than non-jehovah's witnesses.. jehovah's witnesses claim to be happier because they live in a spiritual paradise where everyone is more loving and more moral.. one of the reasons i left is very simply because i found these two claims to be false.. i disproved them by one simple action; getting to know non-jehovah's witnesses.

the more i did this, the more i found that happiness and kindness were traits that were not associated with any particular religious, social, business, ethnic or political group.

happiness and kindness instead were associated with very individual qualities: self confidence, good naturedness, humility, generosity of spirit and patience, among others.. i continue to try to apply these traits to my life and study those around me who display these traits.

rem

Ashitaka,

That was probably one of the scariest times of my life and the most frightening realization I ever made. But then once I was past the threshold I felt a great peace.

Sorry to hijack this thread! :)

rem

20

Help me out here, I'm having an argument

by ballistic in

jw
friends

what i'm debating is this.... and creationist probably wont be able to help.

reproduction is the driving forve of evolution, so why does evolution not simply favour the genes of those that reproduce the most...i.e.

not the most fit, intelligent, etc.. and if this is the case, why does the world not fill up with rampant nyphomaniacs?

rem

I'm not sure if there is a gene for reproduction, or if there were that it would even be effective in devolped nations. In devoloped nations there is birth control which may work against this. I've read on one of the News Groups that Sexual Selection and Genetic Drift, not so much Natural Selection, is responsible for the evolving we are doing in devoloped nations. I'm not sure how much of that is based on fact or opinion, though.

rem

7

Congregational "Get-Togethers"

by mindfield in

as you may have guessed, there's a get-together this week for our cong.

(well, mostly the younger generation).

it's basically going to be about playing games, sports, etc.

rem

Slip,

That is so true! After I was deleted as an MS, a couple of sisters would come up to me regularly saying that they missed my talks. Come to think about it, I had never really associated with these sisters in a social setting, so they really didn't know me. They just knew my talks.

Even now that I've stopped attending meetings for a year, if I do occasionally attend, (my sis-in-law is trying to get reinstated) that's all I hear. "We miss your talks". Never "We miss YOU".

Oh well,

rem

20

Help me out here, I'm having an argument

by ballistic in

jw
friends

what i'm debating is this.... and creationist probably wont be able to help.

reproduction is the driving forve of evolution, so why does evolution not simply favour the genes of those that reproduce the most...i.e.

not the most fit, intelligent, etc.. and if this is the case, why does the world not fill up with rampant nyphomaniacs?

rem

If you are talking about humans, then the world is full of rampant nymphomaniacs. ;) We are extremely sexual creatures.

Other animals seem to need to spend more time surviving than mating. Sexual selection and Natural Selection also play a part. Just because an organism can reproduce a lot it doesn't necessarily follow that it's progeny are more fit than others (they might not all survive to reproductive age).

rem