Posts by Skeptic

35

God ordered abortions?

by Julie in

jw
friends

i have a question.

i have asked it in a private discussion with a fundamentalist who cowardly ignored the whole premise of the thought and am hoping there is someone here who can address it.. i am aware of the fact that abortion is one hot button topic.

it is not my intention to make this a debate about abortion.

Skeptic

Julie,

Wow! That line of reasoning is brillant. I never saw it before, but now that you explained it, it is crystal clear. A very powerful argument indeed.

Funny, fundies are often against abortion, but they don't mind their God killing babies already out of the womb. Or older child. No problem with killing kids, just don't kill the unborn.

Also, the line of reasoning used by anti-abortionists is false. They are against the killing of "innocents who have no say in the matter". Yet, fundies are often the ones who are very pro-war. Yet war kills many innocents. Do these people seriously think that no young, completely innocent children were killed in WWII? War always kills some innocents. These fundies have little idea of how the real world works.

So, if they are against innocent people being killed, they had to be against war. Or at least make war a last resort.

Anyway, enough of my raving. I sent you an email, using the address provided here.

Take Care Julie,

Richard Nazar/Skeptic

35

God ordered abortions?

by Julie in

jw
friends

i have a question.

i have asked it in a private discussion with a fundamentalist who cowardly ignored the whole premise of the thought and am hoping there is someone here who can address it.. i am aware of the fact that abortion is one hot button topic.

it is not my intention to make this a debate about abortion.

Skeptic

Billgoat,

So am I Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

If I take your words at face-value, I would say you are Pro-Choice. You personally would not have an abortion, but would respect another woman's right to have an abortion. That shows reasonableness and balance.

Many Pro-Choice women would not have an abortion. But they want women to have a choice. Most would not choose an abortion as a first choice.

I am sorry for your loss of your child. It must hurt terribly.

Richard

26

An apostate joke

by JW4fr in

jw
friends

why do apostates no longer go door to door?.

they have nothing worthwhile to say.. hah hah hah

Skeptic

JW4fr,

I have a few thoughts.

You accuse LB of being a liar. Yet, it is routine for MS-to-be to be asked, "Can you think of anything that would stop you from becoming a MS?" And you would say yes, knowing full well that you hang out at apostate sites.

Second, what is it that you have to fear? Jehovah knows you come to this site. So you are not afraid of doing anything morally wrong by coming here. So, it must be the JW religion that you are afraid of. That shows how unloving and fear-inspiring your religion. As for me, I want no part of it. Where is the love?

My name is Richard Nazar. What is yours? You gave it in the chat last night, but I wasn't there. I have no fear of being found out. I'll just sue any troublesome elders asses off if they try to cause trouble.

Why are you afraid of your name becoming known? I am not. Who is freer, apostate old me, or you? I thought becoming a Christian made someone free, and kept them from fear. I guess your fear and lack of freedom shows how Christian the JW faith is.

Richard Nazar/Skeptic

29

Need some Input!!!!

by VeniceIT in

jw
friends

ok people!!!!

you might have noticed i haven't been around as much the last few weeks.

i started a new full time job in the cosmetic industry.

Skeptic

Rachelle.

Rachelle is very pretty and classy. So Rachelle would be a good name.

I was going to suggest a small change: Rachelle's

Perhaps with a large, fancy, scripted R.

The poster who suggested adding French had a good idea.

If you need a face to put as a cameo on your products, may I suggest...yours? Especially the one your are currently using on this board. It is perfect for skin care and beauty products. And yes, there is a compliment hidden here.

Richard

25

Mere Christianity: logical reasoning

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

mere christianity: excerpt.

chapter one.

every one has heard people quarrelling.

Skeptic

Hi, Rex,

So, killing of the most defenseless is OK? The woman's comfort is more important than a life? If the little body is at the canal we can kill it but if it emerges we can't (oops, partial birth abortions are ok now)?

Read Rem's statement again. He was not commenting on the morality of abortion. He merely commented that many people find abortion acceptable. Whether one personally agrees or disagrees with abortion, Rem's statement in itself, is accurate.

'Slavery' built the Roman Empire and it was often like employment is today. The 'terrible' Biblical standard was a genuine improvement in women's rights over the previous age.

First, I would like to commend you for not avoiding the fact that the Bible finds slavery acceptable. That shows a great deal of integrity. Many Christians just ignore the issue. I remember the Awake! having its feature articles on slavery and not once did they show what the Bible says on it. Although I was a devote JW at the time, it made me angry that the WTS would be so dishonest.

'Slavery' built the Roman Empire...

Slavery has built many a civilization; that does not make it moral.

...and it [slavery] was often like employment is today.

The following is from the Cahtholic Encyclopedia on the book of Philemon. The link is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11797b.htm The italics are mine.

Onesimus, most likely only one of many slaves of Philemon, fled away and, apparently before his flight, defrauded his master, and ran away to Rome, finding his way to the hired lodging where Paul was suffered to dwell by himself and to receive all that came to him (Acts, xxviii, 16, 30). ..Onesimus, as a Christian, was obliged to make restitution. According to the law, the master of a runaway slave might treat him exactly as he pleased. When retaken, the slave was usually branded on the forehead, maimed, or forced to fight with wild beasts.

Does that sound like Roman slavery was like employment? For simply running away, a slave's master could do as he pleased with the slave. This usually meant he was branded on the forehead, maimed, or forced to fight with wild beasts. What employer could brand or maim an employee, or make the employee fight wild beats? When I leave an employer, the worst that happens is a bad employment reference or maybe I am cheated out of a paycheck. I don't have to fear being maimed.

Slavery is slavery and notemployment.

Poor, Onesimus, not only did he run away, he defrauded his master. Let's hope that the master listened to Paul and was kind to Onesimus. Unfortunately, we will never know.

The 'terrible' Biblical standard was a genuine improvement in women's rights over the previous age.

But it still is a terrible standard. The other standards (except for the Mosiac Law) are men's standards. The Bible's standards are supposed to be written by God. Surely, He could have done better.

Richard

61

the intellectual laziness in jh, ks & follo...

by elke in

jw
friends

the words: intellectual laziness.

recognize this trait?

ahhh,many who apostasies from the one truth, shall we say ,adopts this trait-and transforms into epitomies of intellectual laziness...they construct the premise there is no true god to mislead others...they proceed to construct arguments to support these prefabricated conclusions with the building blocks of false logic...they convince intellectually lazy individuals the odds of a creators existence are remote...a lie recognizable to any form of honest intelligence.. craig rusbult, ph.d. explains why god refuses to provide irrefutable proof in his existence on the web page http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/views/proof.htm - "although it isn't stated directly in the bible, god seems to prefer a balance of evidence: there is enough reason to believe if we want to believe, but not enough to intellectually force belief against our will.

Skeptic

elke,

I find it interesting that the type of Ph.D. is not mentioned. Being well-educated in one area does not mean a person thinks clearly in another area. Nonetheless, maybe the Ph.D. is in something relevant to the article. Or maybe it isn't.

If this article is an example of being intellectual in proving that God exists, then atheism has nothing to fear. Most of it was simply assertions, with no facts backing the assertions up.

Elke, perhaps you would like to explain to my poor, unenlightened brain how that article proves God exists.

I find that fundies like the born-agains and the JWs are quick to question the motives of atheists, but rarely provide examples of clear reasoning on why God must exist. Most of the posts on why God exists only serve to show all how befuddled the poster's reasoning is.

Your post is a fine example. Full of insults, and only a link to so-called proofs. No reasoning of your own displayed. And the link providing the proof proves to be a link to no proof at all.

If you disagree with me, please show in your own words how part of that article proves God must exist.

Richard

53

Atheist you say?

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

direct from the files of [email protected].

how to make an atheist backslide .

there is no god .

Skeptic

Richard the Skeptic is partially correct about the 'trolling' part and I like to make observations of the various reactions.

There had to be a reason for the post other than proving God exists.

Despite the various claims of laughter, I'm sure that each one of you found something within the post that made your new wall shake just a little.

Actually, no. I could believe 100% in God and Christ and still strongly disagree with 90% of that article. With all due respect, that article works against the cause of Christianity. At one extreme, it makes people think that Christians are not clear thinkers.

I got that from C.S. Lewis in his book, 'Miracles'. Now there is a man who can use logic against any one of you, no exceptions.

I am probably one of the few who have never read CS Lewis' books on Christianity.

no one can prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Which is why most atheists will not say God cannot exist. Most, like myself, will say that the probability of God existing is extremely low; so low that for practical purposes it is zero.

We see none of the big picture, thus we have no basis to set ourselves up as judges of His behavior.

We could say the same of Hitler. We can't judge Hitler because we don't grasp the big picture.

I do have to judge God. The Christian God wants my worship, time and resources. I have to decide if He is worthy of my worship. So, I look at what I know of God and decide if He is worthy of my worship.

I concluded that God probably does not exist, and if he does, He is not worthy of my worship. A God who would kill most of the people on earth or who would torment people forever in a burning hell is worse that Hitler. I have every right to judge a God who would do things like that.

Richard

53

Atheist you say?

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

direct from the files of [email protected].

how to make an atheist backslide .

there is no god .

Skeptic

Me thinks Rex was trolling with this one. The extent of the writer's bad logic is shown when you substitute "Unicorns", "Space Aliens", "The Great Buffalo", or any religion's god for the word God in that article.

The same logic "proves" that Unicorns/Space Aliens/The Great Buffalo exists and created everything. Since we do not know everything, how can we say that Unicorns do not exist and did not create everything. Obviously, those who do not believe in Unicorns do not want to be accountable to Unicorns.

With enough faith, you can believe anything.

Richard

20

Attending WT meetings/functions

by Lee Elder in

jw
friends

i've been inactive for over 4 years now but i'm still attached though - loosely.. i will occassionally attend a meeting or portion of an assembly or convention.. i get a mixed reception at these gatherings.

generally my experience has.

been that the larger the group, the more inclined i am to run into some who.

Skeptic

There may be other reasons for this, although I agree with your comments that older JWs have mellowed. Their experience as Witnesses has shown them that they do not need to be rabid about their faith.

However, what you are seeing may be just the way people act at funerals. People tend to set aside long-held animosities at funerals. Family members who may not be on good terms normally are usually civil to eachother at funerals.

Also, JW funerals are one of the few times that worldly relatives attend Witness services. JWs may not be inclined to openly shun ex-JWs at funerals as the public will notice, and this is bad publicity.

Richard

6

verbal V's written . arguments / debates

by sleepy in

jw
friends

i have become quite frustrated recently.. why is it so difficult to prove or reason on a point with someone who holds a opposite viewpoint?.

you can recite the known facts of a situation over and over but some people will not get it.. being able to articulate a point clearly to another person and for them to understand can seem like a black art.. this is much worse in a verbal debate.it is hard when talking with someone to disscus a subject properly.. you start of on one point and before you know it the conversation has moved off in another tangent.. this is why i feel written aurguments hold more weight.you can not change the subject .also it is more vital that you get your facts right in written articles as people are more likely to check where as in a verbal disscusion it is easy say something you know is not provable or valid in the heat of the moment.. but you've got to get the person then to read , that can often be harder than getting them to converse with you.. so what do you think which is the better method of getting a point accross verbal or written.. (god i'm bad at spelling)

Skeptic

I agree. I prefer to see written arguements, especially on the topic of religion, atheism and evolution. Evolution is complex, and it takes time to digest the arguements.

A good example is Rex B13's latest article on atheism. It would go over well if given from a pulpit because most of the audience would not have time to see the less obvious flaws, and lots of emotional bluster can be put into its presentation. In written form, though, its flaws are glaring.

Plus, I am better at written arguments. I am good at public speaking, but am not fast on my feet when convincing someone in person.

Richard