first i should say that i do not like islam for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the moslem treatment of women.
still, the free exercise of anyone's peaceful observance of their religion, including moslems, trumps my personal preferences.
also, living in america, i evidently enjoy a greater degree of religious liberty than i see in recent years in continental europe, something that continues to baffle me.. today the european court of justice, the same group that has stood up for the rights of jws, has decreed that it is ok for employers to ban the wearing of religious symbols among employees.
This could open a can of worms tho.
What if the employer bans religious symbols such as the hijab, but allows someone to wear a jewelry with a cross?
What if the employer is adept of a certain religion and wishes to have its religious symbol at the workplace. Can an employee of a different religion feel offended and demand that the symbol is withdrawn?
first i should say that i do not like islam for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the moslem treatment of women.
still, the free exercise of anyone's peaceful observance of their religion, including moslems, trumps my personal preferences.
also, living in america, i evidently enjoy a greater degree of religious liberty than i see in recent years in continental europe, something that continues to baffle me.. today the european court of justice, the same group that has stood up for the rights of jws, has decreed that it is ok for employers to ban the wearing of religious symbols among employees.
Why bring religious symbols to the workplace, anyway?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I do in fact wish that I could have a belief in a personal deity that cares about me and will allow me to continue my conscious existence after I die.
My feelings exactly. I also think that, if such a loving god exists, then he should be able to forgive my lack of belief, because, I have done nothing to warrant eternal punishment. And if such deity should deem me worthy of eternal punishment just because I couldn't believe, well ... then such a petty god wouldn't deserve my worship anyway.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
The moral evil is done by free conscious agents. The only problem is natural evil.
No. Read what I wrote. The persistence of evil. There's no compelling enough reason that an Almighty and all-loving god would tolerate the persistence of evil, natural or caused by free-willed agents. And why does god need that humans (again, mediators) explain to other humans why god tolerates evil? Why can't he clearly tell that to everyone, directly?
what kind of mediation do you mean?
Why is god unable / unavailable to communicate with humans universally? Is he bound by time so that he only has 24 hours a day? is he bound by space so that he can only be on some place at the same time? Why does god require a religious framework, prophets, priests, seerers, mediums in order to relay his messages and accept worship from his creations? The most efficient method of communication would be two-way direct communication with each individual, anywhere, anytime. Why is god unable to do so, and instead seems to rely on means that are prone to introduce error and distortion into the communication?
This is a very strict concept of God.
Well, it's what Jesus and Paul, pillars of the Christian faith, have said about the necessity of faith. "Without faith is impossible to please God" (Heb 11:6) The god of the bible doesn't necessarily demands my reason, but clearly demands my faith, or my belief in unsubstantiated claims. Actually, it demands that I chose faith over reason, should both be in conflict.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
It begs to be answered why would the god of christianity - heck, ANY god - would require mediation in its dealings with the human beings that the divinity supposedly caused to exist.
It begs to be answered why would a deity create lifeforms and gift them with extraordinary intelligence, and then demand that they relate to him by faith.
It begs to be answered why a god that portrays itself as all-powerful and the apex of love would allow the existence and persistence of evil in any form.
It begs to be answered why such an Almighty and loving god would value his reputation more than the endless suffering of the creatures he supposedly caused to exist.
Turns out that life makes a lot more sense (albeit is much less heart-warming) when god is removed from the equation.
i haven't been here for several days, so apologies if similar comments have been posted regarding messrs spinks' & o'brien's "spiritual & scriptural" replies to the australian royal commission last week.. perhaps this line of questioning by mr. stewart could have helped exposed the org's corruption of the "two witness" rule:.
mr stewart: mr. spinks, does the jehovah's witnesses' leadership base their "two witness" rule solely on the bible?.
mr. spinks: yes.
marked
apologies if this has been posted already.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-10/uniting-church-in-australia-apologises-to-victims/8344496.
RO, I wonder how can you look in the mirror every day and be able to live with yourself.
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
I don't think they will "do" anything to the Watchtower ... I believe that on the last minute the WT lawyers will find a way to weasel around the right thing to do by the victims and whatever changes made (which will be a positive outcome, in any case) will be presented as originating from the holy spirit. And that's the alternative version of the truth that the vast majority of the flock will chose to believe in. But ... great damage has been made, in between. As jwfacts put it:
by uncovering the illegal manner in which Watchtower operates when not disclosing known cases of abuse, this will provide a basis for individuals to sue for compensation.
Don't forget that the documents produced by the ARC will be official documents and their findings will be set in stone for future use. The WT may well brace itself for a swarm of legal trouble, not from the authorities, but from individual people sueing them. Although I sometimes think that the WTS is so full os themselves that they may do something incredibly stupid and defiant of the law and of the authorities. I don't see that happening, though.
Nonetheless, It would be a most welcome outcome if they lose their charity status. "Charity" my ass! They operate like a for profit corporation that exploits members by selling false fantasies while profiting from real estate deals made under the guise of religion. Losing the charity status would put a serious dent on their business model.
with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?
i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.
how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.
Hence, why I said ... their assets and reputation are values that trump all other considerations. It's their very survival as a viable religious business that's at stake.
with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?
i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.
how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.
Matthew 18:16 - There needs to be two or three witnesses so that an accusation against someone in the congregation is firmly established. No death penalty involved here.
And, by the way - Matthew 18:17 - "If he [the accused] doesn't listen, speak to the congregation.". Let me ask you, Fisherman: is the Governing Body following this direct order from Jesus? When a case of serious sin, serious enough to have disfellowshipping as consequence, is being dealt with, is the congregation EVER told what is going on, and called to make a judgement, AS JESUS SAID IT SHOULD BE?
In Russell's day, that's how matters were handled. Rutherford changed it so that only Elders could handle it in secrecy. Where do you stand on this?
Fisherman - WT only uses the "2 witness rule" to adjudicate church matters, but they comply secular law.
Utter BS
