DJS, you are quite disrespectful and obviously do not read my posts as you continue talking about honor killings and bakers serving LGBT weddings. So, I will not waste my time arguing with you.
Sanchy
JoinedPosts by Sanchy
-
95
Supreme Court Of Russia bans Jehovah's Witnesses as an 'extremist organization'
by EdenOne inread the news here.
the jehovah's witnesses lost their appeal to the supreme court of russia.
bethel to be liquidated.. i bet the gb saw this coming ... here comes the persecution complex paranoia.
-
-
Sanchy
-
95
Supreme Court Of Russia bans Jehovah's Witnesses as an 'extremist organization'
by EdenOne inread the news here.
the jehovah's witnesses lost their appeal to the supreme court of russia.
bethel to be liquidated.. i bet the gb saw this coming ... here comes the persecution complex paranoia.
-
-
Sanchy
Proliferates literature containing hate speach toward humans whose sex, sexuality, ethic religous, political and cultural differences do not square with WT ideas of what is acceptable
Don't you see that this is EXACTLY what some of you are advocating that Governments do?? What right do you have to enforce upon me your "acceptable" view on such things as religion, sexuality, cultural and political ideology? These sorts of things cannot be enforced unless a tyranny is set up (history shows this to be the case with the leftist marxism/communism movements, ironically the direction Russia seems to be headed)
If you want to influence ppl into certain ideologies, you do it with information. You teach, educate, and patiently the market of ideas will create winners and losers. It takes time, but its the only right way to do it.
-
95
Supreme Court Of Russia bans Jehovah's Witnesses as an 'extremist organization'
by EdenOne inread the news here.
the jehovah's witnesses lost their appeal to the supreme court of russia.
bethel to be liquidated.. i bet the gb saw this coming ... here comes the persecution complex paranoia.
-
-
Sanchy
Wow, just wow. It really pains me to see the amount of hatred some of you here display.
DJS: Let me ask you, what if the Orthodox Russian Church coerces the government into outlawing "extremist" atheist "propaganda" such as Darwin's Theory book or any other non-theist publication. Would it be a "good law" then?
No JW publication encourages honor killings or burning of heretics. So it's an unfair comparison. Also, the right for a baker to not serve an LGBT wedding is his/her individual right and in no way is this unique to the JW religion as something only they are promoting. Besides that, you are going to defend Russia's gay rights history?
Yes...everyone should be allowed to follow his individual conscience (as long as that does not mean to inflict harm om others).
But in Watchtowerland, your individual conscience is to be made obedient to Watchtower rules. Your conscience allows you (or even urges you) to accept blood, or continue associating with your DFed children? Watchtower will try force you to violate your conscience. If you don't, you'll lose all your friends and family.
It is the right of EVERY individual to decide what they will let their concience be guided by. This is a God-given right (mother universe given right for the atheist amongst us) and it cannot be removed by a government. Whether you like the teachings of the JWs or not, taking away their rights is NEVER THE ANSWER. I dont understand why progressives world-round fail to see that one day, this very government that is removing the rights of those you dislike, can turn around and do the same thing to YOUR rights.
For all the people who cry out that Russia doesn't recognize "freedom of religion", what they fail to realize is that the WTS takes away freedom of religion. Russia has recognized that individual freedom is more important than an American corporation's freedom to enslave the Russian people with their harmful doctrines and practices
There is so much wrong with this reasoning, that it pains me to even hear it. "Russia has recognized that individual freedom is.. important"???? Really?? So taking away ppl's god given rights as individuals to decide how they will live their life is "recognizing individual freedom" ? Please, listen to yourself.
-
95
Supreme Court Of Russia bans Jehovah's Witnesses as an 'extremist organization'
by EdenOne inread the news here.
the jehovah's witnesses lost their appeal to the supreme court of russia.
bethel to be liquidated.. i bet the gb saw this coming ... here comes the persecution complex paranoia.
-
-
Sanchy
I cannot understand for the life of me how some of you here have been able to let build so much anger and resentment in your hearts so as to possibly consider the probable upcoming pain/troubles/persecutions of those you once considered "brothers" to be a good thing. My friends, I know the JW religion has been the source of much personal pain for most of us, but please remember that two wrongs do NOT make a right. A few points I'd like to make:
1) Since when do government bans stop the JW message from spreading? History shows that it only has a contrary effect. Gov bans do NOT stop JWs, freedom of information does.
2) These are real individuals involved that will suffer real pains and persecutions for the reason of following their religious conscience. No matter how "pathetic" you think the religious doctrines are, it's every individuals right to follow their own individual conscience. No government law can ever change this fact without becoming a tyranny, and it's attempts to do so will only replace one oppressive system with another.
-
52
Is shunning unscriptual?
by MrTheocratic ininternational version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.
do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.
.how does one explain this scripture?.
-
-
Sanchy
I don't think this "Paul contradicts Jesus" theme works with ppl who still believe in scripture as the word of God. Afterall, Jesus handpicked Paul as an apostle and clearly blessed him with holy spirit to do many great works.
Me personally, I do believe shunning to a certain degree IS indeed scriptural. However, it seems to me that nowhere in the bible is authority given to form a judicial system, a system with theocratic courts and judges and punishments/sentences. This would go beyond the statement given by Paul, and indeed beyond the attitude Jesus told his followers to have. (an attitude opposite to the pharisees)
Rather, the suggestion here is on an individual basis, directed toward all in the congregation. An idea closely related to the concept that "bad company corrupts good character", Paul is simply encouraging all Christians to avoid relating closely to any who 'claiming to be a brother practices all these things'. This would be up to the conscience of each christian to follow. Nowhere does it speak of a "state" of disfellowshipping which someone falls into after being declared "guilty of not repenting" in which they can't be spoken to for the rest of their lives until they follow some reinstatement procedure.This theocratic judicial system goes beyond scripture and intent, and ultimately I think does more harm than good to the Christian Conscience.
This same context also applies to 2 John 10 of "not even greeting someone who does not bring this teaching". Again, this is a personal recommendation directed towards individuals, a recommendation again closely related to the "bad company corrupts.." concept. Besides that, who is John referring to in this text when he mentions to not even greet? The context shows that he is referring to someone who refuses to believe in Christ, the "anti-christ". Can a JW say they are following this scripture if they shun someone that although in disagreement with JW doctrine, still believes in Christ?
For more discussion in the subject, there is always jwfacts.com.
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Sanchy
All the evidence needed. I rest my case :)
P.S. to my wife, if you see this message, I love you!
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Sanchy
Yes that is correct and in no way conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics.
Well, I don't completely agree with this... and one day I'll be able to explain why I dont :)
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Sanchy
The evidence is overwhelming
Its true Cofty that the evidence to certain evolutionary processes leading to variety in species as exist today is "overwhelming". However, the evidence as to what sparked or started this process is lacking and indeed open to many theories and interpretations .
Remember too that the burden of proof is on creationists
Although I agree that the burden to prove a creator falls upon creationists (an admitted seemingly impossible feat as I mentioned previously) it can also be said the burden to prove life can come from inanity also falls upon non-believers. Many ideas and theories and experiments have thus far been concocted, however the concept remains not fully proven.
Entropy will decrease in a closed system.
Exactly... it will slow down per se in closed systems; however, it seems to my humble mind that it has not slowed, but rather done a 180 and gone backwards within our supposed closed system to the point of reversing itself and creating order beyond any order existent in our known universe. The good ol' "a watch will not create itself" analogy comes to play.
Having said this, I will read the link you sent me, it looks interesting. Thanks for that. -
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Sanchy
I'm agnostic and do not pretend to have the ability nor the knowledge to prove for the existence of a creator. Having said that, here are my two cents:
-Can one currently actually present certain proof as to whether a creator exists (or existed) or not? If not, it would be wise for all here to avoid a dogmatic attitude (like the humble and discreet GB cough, cough)
-One of the fundamental reasons (knowingly or unknowingly) for many having faith (and it must be faith due to reasons outlined in my first point) in a creator sparking and guiding the biological processes is based IMO on the second law of thermodynamics, aka "entropy". In a universe with ever increasing entropy, what caused a reverse to occur in allowing for an ever increasing order in the biological chain, leading to the existence of ever more ordered and complex organisms? A fundamental law that we all have engraved in our human conscience of "disorder not leading to order" is inherently broken if one accepts that no "order" existed before current "order" as exists now. (of course there's the whole close and open system explanation, but that one does not completely convince me for various reasons)
-Does this disprove evolution? Not really. In fact, its quite clear that evolution has led to the seemingly infinite variety of species we see today. Even JWs believe in a form of evolution as stated in an earlier post. However, how do we reconcile the theory with the possibility of a creator? and..does the account of Genesis contradict the evolutionary theory in its entirety?
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Sanchy
JWs unknowingly believe in a form of Evolution:
From the Reasoning Book:
Did God create all the millions of varieties of organisms that exist on earth today?
Genesis chapter 1 says simply that God created each “according to its kind.” (Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25) In preparation for the global Flood in Noah’s day, God directed that representative members of each “kind” of land animal and flying creature be taken into the ark. (Gen. 7:2, 3, 14) Each “kind” has the genetic potential for great variety. Thus there are reportedly more than 400 different breeds of dogs and upwards of 250 breeds and types of horses. All interfertile varieties of any animal are just one Genesis “kind.” Similarly, all varieties of humans—Oriental, African, Caucasian, those as tall as the seven-foot Dinka in the Sudan and as short as the four-foot-four-inch Pygmies—stem from the one original pair, Adam and Eve.—Gen. 1:27, 28; 3:20.
