Posts by EdenOne

28

Part of Growing Up - Saying Goodbye to Invisible Friends?

by doubtfull1799 in

i don’t remember having any invisible friends when i was a really little boy, i don’t know if such a thing actually exists, i’ve only ever seen it in movies?

of course it might have looked to others like i was talking to someone on occasions, but i’m sure it would have just been me talking to myself.

the thing is though, i got introduced to an invisible friend in my pre-teens, and i kept the relationship going well into adulthood.

EdenOne

Well said ...

When a prayer is seemingly "answered" in a positive way, it is really just a case of confirmation bias.

31

I wrote to Mr. Angus Stewart regarding the "inactive" status claims made by the Watchtower at the ARC

by EdenOne in

this is the email i have just sent to mr. stewart angus, who has been conducting the questioning of the jw leaders during the australian royal commission dealing with child abuse cases among the jehovah's witnesses, concerning the claims made that a jehovah witness who wishes to walk away from the organization can simply become inactive and avoid being shunned:.

dear mr. angus stewart,

i have followed with interest the videos of the arc regarding the jehovah's witnesses in australia.

EdenOne

I have received a reply from the Australian Royal Commission, signed by its CEO, Mr. Philip Reed, on behalf of Mr. Angus Stewart, thanking me for my letters, and informing that it has been "passed to the appropriate officers within the Royal Commission for their consideration."

They are listening.

6

I wrote to Mr. Angus Stewart regarding the "bible-based two witness rule" claims made by the Watchtower at the ARC

by EdenOne in

besides the email message to mr. angus stewart that i have posted on the other thread, i have send him the following email regarding the two-witness rule and the claims it can't be changed because it's "bible-based":.

"dear mr. angus steward,.

i would like to draw your attention to another aspect of the arguments presented by the leadership of the jehovah's witness, in this case regarding the "two witness rule" and the duty to report to secular authorities.

EdenOne

I have received a reply from the Australian Royal Commission, signed by its CEO, Mr. Philip Reed, on behalf of Mr. Angus Stewart, thanking me for my letter, and informing that it has been "passed to the appropriate officers within the Royal Commission for their consideration."

They are listening.

12

My letter to the Australian Royal Commission regarding case study #29 Jehovah's Witnesses

by EdenOne in

someone suggested i would address a letter not only to mr. angus stewart, but also to the royal commission as well.

it merges the two subjects on the same letter (inactive status and shunning; two witness rule), and adds some things more that what i said to mr. stewart.

it's a bit long, please bear with me.. --------------------------------------- .

EdenOne

I have received a reply from the Australian Royal Commission, signed by its CEO, Mr. Philip Reed, on behalf of Mr. Angus Stewart, thanking me for my letters, and informing that it has been "passed to the appropriate officers within the Royal Commission for their consideration."

They are listening.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

EdenOne

By conscient nihl I didn't mean a conscient pursuit of nihl. I meant a sentient, perpetual and hopeless experience of nihl, taking place as a consequence of a metaphorical original sin by a couple of man and woman 6.000 ago in mesopotania. Is that your definition of hell? Please start by telling me where in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus you find that notion, so that it can clearly be lablelled "christian" - and I say this because you define your beliefs as christian.

It seems to me that you don't take Adam and Eve literally to be the common acestors of all makind, as per the literal reading of Genesis. If 6.000 years ago god decided for the first time to give a soul to some random couple in mesopotamia, and many more human beings were already in existence around the globe, what do the non-descendants of that couple have to do with it all? Why the burden of the original sin was imposed upon them? At what point the non-descendants of that couple began to have souls? And why? And how?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

EdenOne

I take it that the "worse consequence of sin", as per your defense, would be perpetual, conscient nihl.

You say, then, that the consequence of the metaphorical original sin is god not stopping the soul from falling into a default state of perpetual nihl. "Salvation", then, is god actively rescueing the soul from nihl, while "doom" is god denying the soul such intervention. Is this your belief?

Lets leave aside the discussion about the existence of a "soul" and for the sake of discussion, assume that it simply exists. Let's also forget for a moment that none of what you describe as being your christian belief is backed by the Bible or by the teachings of Jesus or the apostles - it actually goes against much of it.

You said that god gives each man a soul at the moment of conception. That makes god the causing agent of that soul, not the physical parents. God isn't bound by any law according to which he must abide to give a soul to every fertilized human egg. He has a choice to give it or not give a soul. By causing a soul to exist, god is taking responsability for such soul. If god is the causing agent of the existence of that soul, it is entirely god's responsability that such soul is made to pay for the original sin. Because, you know, he chose to create that soul. If, because of the original sin, that human is born defective, or dies in a horrific tsunami, it is entirely god's will. Because an almighty god could a) decided to not give that human a soul; b) have crated a world where tsunamis didn't exist, because they're entirely not needed for life to exist; c) have created a world where humans would be miraculously protected from natural disasters and genetic defects.

And finally, after injustly subjecting millions of human beings to needless suffering during their physical life, god decides, after a few years, to resign from responsability towards the soul he created by doing nothing to stop that soul from falling into a perpetual state of sentient nihil.

I wonder - is this a god worth believing and worshipping?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

EdenOne

This is a very controversial event. It's used to defend Calvinism. This is a very very long discussion.

Are you avoiding the question? By all means, grace us with your apologetics of the god that made that man blind from birth. Because either "god did it" (for a number of possible reasons claimed by theistic apologetics) and then god is a moral monster; or then god didn't do it but is powerless or indifferent to stop it and then, why is he a god that merits worshipping?

It's not sinS and not all ancestors.

It's a very specific sin regarding the human nature itself committed only by the first souled human couple in a very specific situation (somewhere in Mesopotamia about 6.000 years ago).

It doesn't matter who committed that sin. Making others pay for it goes against basic justice and decency. Makes god a moral monster, not to mention an assassin.

Even those who didn't vote (or agree with) in the leaders must face the consequences too.

Not a good analogy. The god of the Bible made it entirely impossible for someone to escape suffering and death in the physical domain, the only one we can universally verify that exists. While many people find themselves trapped by political situations, they can always attempt to escape and some do it successfully, so it's not an inevitability.

I swear, the more I read theist apologetics, the more inclined I am towards atheism. If nothing else, just by sheer disgust.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

EdenOne

My opinion is I can't escape from all consequences of acts (physical and metaphysical) done by my ancestors.

You are in contradiction with the Scriptures, then. When asked by his disciples if a man had been born blind because of the sins of his forebearers, Jesus denied that it was so. He also denied that he was blind for something he had done himself. (John 9:1-3) In turn, Jesus suggested that God had singled out this man to suffer decades of blindness so that he could perform a heal miracle spectacle to awe people. This explanation also makes god look like a moral monster who plays with people's lives and doesn't really care for their suffering.

In what way a child being born blind is a "consequence" of the sins of its forebearers?It It can only be so, not by default, but by direct determination of god. A god that makes someone pay for the sins of his forebearers is a moral monster who doesn't deserve to be worshipped. It's definetively NOT the god of love that christianity portrays.

43

It seems that many witnesses simply dont care about facts?

by stuckinarut2 in

i often wonder if the current crop of witnesses, especially the youth and younger ones simply don't care about facts?.

i mean for some, even with knowledge of the past scandals, misleading teachings, mistruths, etc etc, they simply don't care.

"it is the truth after all".. they are so intertwined in the operations and activities of the society, that they cant see anything outside of it.

EdenOne

On my JC hearing, one of the 5 Elders (yes, there were 5!), actually the one who was presiding, turned to me, holding the Bible in the air: "I don't care what historians say. If history contradicts the Bible, I will believe the Bible". I told him, well that settles it, doesn't it - it's useless to continue this discussion with you.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

EdenOne

The only reason why Jesus was baptized by John is that Jesus was initially a disciple of John, who later on started his own sect of radical, messianic judaism. That's the simple truth that the early christian writers attempted to obfuscate when they wrote the gospels. Because that would undermine the belief that Jesus had been God's anointed envoy.

The baptism of Jesus (not in the sense it was performed directly by Him) is totally different from the baptism of John.

Of course, that's the explanation that the later followers of chistianity had to come up with to say that the baptism of Jesus was superior to that of John. This happened in a time when the disciples of John who didn't buy into Jesus' sect were still raising controversy with the Jesus followers, as it is vaguely documented in Acts. The fact that the author of Acts even mentioned it (only to then tell the story that those had finally converted to christianity) denotes that this controversy was still well alive still many decades after Jesus' death and was a theological problem for the early Christian congregation. That is why (not a coincidence!) only Luke and Matthew tell the story that John Baptist wanted to be sure that Jesus was the messiah (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:18, 19), to give the impression that even John Baptist accepted Jesus as the messiah. This story is implausible and probably never took place, and that's why Mark (the earliest gospel) and John don't mention it.

Still, if baptism is an essential sacrament for salvation, why weren't the apostles baptized by Jesus?