FreeWilly

Joined

• started 28 topics
• posted 509 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by FreeWilly

• 
  152

  More proof of Global Warming

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  people freezing to death.

  o fortuna!.

  http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081222/gpg0101/81222109/1207/gpg01.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  I see. When all else fails, resort to insults. Brilliant.... compelling... mature. Apparently simply discussing facts are just too much for you.
• 
  152

  More proof of Global Warming

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  people freezing to death.

  o fortuna!.

  http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081222/gpg0101/81222109/1207/gpg01.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  In your reply it appeared you weren't able to grasp the point of the "African Nation" spending recklessly, as if fiscal irresponsibility did not also apply to other nations including ours. My "inane" question makes the same point in simpler terms. And no, I do not expect you to answer it. The point is made by either post even if you choose to avoid it.
• 
  152

  More proof of Global Warming

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  people freezing to death.

  o fortuna!.

  http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081222/gpg0101/81222109/1207/gpg01.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Population control and resource management including enviuronmental initiatives to preserve biodiversity should be the top priorities.

  BEK: Exactly.

  Sorry Bek, you are now out of money because you were told that CO2 was the biggest problem facing humanity. No money for wildlife, clean waterways, research and planning. It was a "feel good" initiative at the time, but now the Rhino's of Zimbabwee wish you wouldn't have wasted it. Too bad, maybe new Rhino's will evolve.
• 
  152

  More proof of Global Warming

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  people freezing to death.

  o fortuna!.

  http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081222/gpg0101/81222109/1207/gpg01.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  BEK:

  The thing is FreeWilly, that this African Nation that you speak of contributes very little to the detriment as evidenced by Big Tex chart. It is we who have been so spoiled that need to change.

  OK, delete "African Nation", replace with "Industrialized nation", the principle is the same. And that is, if ANY NATION needlessly spends its money on a myth then you have less money to allocate for things that are actually effective. In the case of AGW, you actually went into debt spending present and future reserves so you're really screwed.

  Bek, do you think that spending the bulk of your available resources on a pointless measure will somehow have a positive effect on the environment? If so, let me know and i will set up a fund you can donate to.
• 
  152

  More proof of Global Warming

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  people freezing to death.

  o fortuna!.

  http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081222/gpg0101/81222109/1207/gpg01.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  BEK: "Ok you global warming doubters, I have a question. Do you truly, honestly, believe that our current ways have no negative impact on the earth and our future?"

  Precisely! Bek, you seamlessly interchanged the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming with the adverse effects of modern civilization upon the natural world as if they were the same. The presumption is that to deny one is to deny all. I'm not going to read too much into just one question, however I will say that this "Fruedian slip" is quite common. It's as if to say those skeptical of AGW are ecologically unfriendly on all fronts. CO2 denying Scientists are in bed with "Big Oil". Individuals who a skeptical are republican, conservative or right leaning. Political leaders a paid stooges etc.

  Human caused Global Warming rests entirely upon the behavior of the CO2 molecule. This is an Academic issue that has become a political "call to arms". Science and politics are horrible bed fellows. If anything besides CO2 is to blame then the predominantly human link goes out the window. Humans are responsible for so many other problems affecting our world that it is easy to presume this is another. Yet putting CO2 into that role is clearly a square peg in a round hole.

  What you may not realize though is that supporting measures to combat Global Warming based on a false premise is likely to be devastating on the environment. The world possesses only so much discretionary resources that it can apply toward its problems. If these resources are squandered than there's that much less left for legitimate initiatives that would have meaningful impacts on our ecology.

  For example, an African Nation could be pressured to spend the majority of their budget surpluses on anti CO2 measures. These measures would add to costs and reduce economic activity, yet it is supposedly for the greater good. They may be forced to reduce, divert or postpone investment from say their National Parks programs that serve to protect endangered species like Rhino's, Gorilla's, etc, thereby exacerbating damage to already dwindling Biodiversity. Of course this is hypathetical, but it is exactly the choice that would be placed upon every nation in the world if the hype took hold.

  People just do not realize what this "Global Warming" movement would cost and what it would look like in the real world. It's as if they believe reducing CO2 in our atmosphere will magically help biodiversity, pollution, deforestation, or disease. To the contrary, it will rob resources from these initiatives. Thank goodness the Sun is now waning and the obvious is sinking in. Otherwise we just may have launched a global boondoggle that sucked every last dollar available for real and pressing ecological needs.
• 
  152

  More proof of Global Warming

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  people freezing to death.

  o fortuna!.

  http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081222/gpg0101/81222109/1207/gpg01.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  It would be nice, for once to see an AGW proponent on this site actually posses a Science degree and work in a Scientific based field before they imply others who disagree are stupid. 6o9, my education, experience and career are in Chemistry and Health Physics. Are you calling me stupid also? Do you even posses a Science degree, much less have some sort of background that would support you pompus attitude?

  Let's see....CO2 concentrations continue to rise, but Global temperatures continue to fall. Hmmm. Coincidentally solar activity is also waning. Hmmmm... tink tink, tink. Oh hell with it lets just infer people who don't agree are stupid and ignor the actual trend.
  
  
  Note: none of the facts below are accompanied by references. Please, reveal your ignorance and contest any you don't believe.
  
  Fact at 380 PPM the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is near it's all time LOW. Yes LOW.
  
  Fact 1998 was when recent temperatures peaked. We've been cooling ever since. Coincidentally Solar activity has subsided as predicted, producing cooler global temperature as predicted (shocking, I know). Some one implied "a cold day here and there" doesn't apply. HELLO does a decade?
  
  Fact CO2 rise is a lagging after effect of global temperature rise as shown irrefutably by Vostok. It has never in atmospheric history been a climate driver. EVER.
  
  Fact The basis for CO2 becoming a climate driver is based entirely - yes entirely - on computer climate models. Why computer models and not real world observation? See the fact above and think a little. These very modeling programs have not only failed to see our current cooling trend (in the face of increasing CO2) but have failed to predict real world historical trends with all the variables known. Computer models that have a proven failure rate over 80% of the time.
  
  Fact for most of Earth's history our atmosphere has possessed CO2 concentration 500-1200% higher than now spanning multiple ice ages. (6o9 you may want to casually avoid this oddity)
  
  Fact CO2 is a trace gas. Trace as in <0.04% of all atmospheric gasses. Of that 0.04% humans have added 0.008%. I defy you to explain the incredible thermodynamic properties of CO2 that cause the 0.008% change to affect climate.
  
  Fact CO2's role as a ghg is also minor. It comprises <3% of the ghg mix.
  
  Face it now or deny it later. You have been duped to believe an ill founded hysterical premise. Sure humans are doing bad things to the planet, but increased CO2 is not one of them - ask any tree. This has all been discussed here ad nauseum. If you want the references to any of the above do a site search first.
• 
  4

  Let's start a JW email

  by loosie in

  1. social
  2. humour

  ok to go along with rebel's and mary's idea about concocting an email for jw's.

  lets come up with something believeable that we can start circulating.

  i am still in with two friends that live 2000 miles away so they don't know that i am out.. any ideas?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  That's a great letter Mickey. I'd love to see that circulate as a Bethel talk experience or pioneer school lecture notes etc.
• 
  23

  Noah and the flood

  by Iwonder17 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.

  is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?

  also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Oh Brother, Do you really believe the mountains did not exist 5000 years ago? You do realize that for water to "cover the earth" there could be no mountains - right? And when Noah landed his boat in Africa ALL of the kangaroos, wombats, and Tasmanian devils built another boat and made their way to Australia. None were left behind in Africa - right? And of the 300,000 species of Beatles, presumably only a handful made it on the Ark then afterward began a massive evolutionary explosion to create 300,000 species again. The fossil record bears this out - right?
• 
  193

  Deceptive or just wrong?

  by johnnyc in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.

  in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.

  however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Johnny,

  I've been following the thread and just want to point out a few things you should consider.

  Regarding the "prophet" thing, your comparison of the Society's predictions to Jonah are not quite compatible. Jonah DID receive information from Jehovah. His transmission of that information to the Ninevites was a faithful and accurate representation of the direction given from Jehovah despite Gods changing his mind. He said precicely what Jehovah told him. He didn't get it wrong, revise it, retract it or otherwise muck it up. Whereas the Society claims to be the sole channel of communication from Jehovah and yet many of these have failed, been revised or reinterpreted. So either Jehovah is responsible for the failures or these were not a result of direction from Jehovah proving the Societys claim wrong - at the very least in those cases.

  The disciples who wrongly speculated on the timing of the end is likewise an incompatible example. Again they were not charged with delivering a message from God. They drew wrong conclusions and speculated on it with others. Jesus quickly corrected the misconception. Compare that with the Society teaching false, date centered predictions for decades unabated only to replace them with more faulty predictions while simultaneously claiming they came from Jehovah.

  The issue is not human imperfection causing published errors to occur, but rather claiming themselves divinely directed and a channel of communication from God. We can mince words about whether claiming to be a channel of communication, receiving angelic direction, identifying oneself as part of a "prophet class" etc. qualifies as claiming to be a prophet. The Society, by claiming to be the only recipients of divine direction are placing their words on a level with God's. They wield a good deal of influence due to this claim. We know this claim is wrong in at least dozens (if not hundreds) of instances which begs the larger question.

  Whenever anyone in the Bible claimed to be a "channel of communication" representing God in the Bible, this claim was backed by unmistakable divine power. Abraham, Moses, the prophets, the Apostles, Jesus - all had divine power to back up their bold claims as representatives. The Society claims that the prophecy in Joel (2:28) that speaks of God's spirit being poured out IS true of them just like it was true of the Apostles. They adimttedly lack any tangible manifestations of God's power and backing that the Apostles enjoyed. Their claim is that Jehovah's outpouring of spirit is instead apparent in the "glorious truth's" revealed through them. So their evidence of divine backing stands or falls on the accuracy and reliability of their own writings. Perhaps you can measure this claim against their prolific failures here

  Whether or not the were "deceptive or just wrong" is somewhat beside the point. Judging a multigenerational collective of men in this way is futile. However what is clear is that their claim of divine direction lives or dies on the basis of what they have published while occupying the assumed role as "God's channel". On a common sense level, if the salvation of mankind depends on people's response to God's information as presented through JW's, does enormity of revisions, reversals, retractions and failed predictions make sense to you? Could Jehovah blame anyone for rejecting the JW message based on the prevalance of their false doomsday claims, doctrinal flip flops and in some cases plain quackery? How could he?
• 
  9

  I'm expecting a return visit tomorrow. A little help?

  by FreeWilly in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  so some nice jw ladies stopped by and left the "truth" pamphlet.

  i told then that i wasn't a big fan of the bible since it was very divisive.

  as an example i told them that my folks became jw's and it devestated our family.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Johnny,

  I am well aware of the true beliefs of JW's. At the door they will say they don't believe they are the only ones saved. We know the reality though, it's right their in the publications. DO I really need to provide the WT quotes?

  JW's may also say, like you, that association with non JW's is just fine - no problem. But you and I are both aware of the realities. "Worldly" people in general are not considered "wholesome association". The Society teaches that the boogie man Satan will even use family members and sway them from the "truth". Too much association with non family is discouraged. I just needed the citations that's all.

  JW's are condidtioned to put on two faces. One they wear at the door where they claim they are just another normal reasonable religion. At the KH of course it's a different story. When a new bible study is learning the "truth" they are not told that they will have to withdraw from their family. Yet that is what eventually is expected. In fact it's designed into the program. No Festivities, no birthdays, no Thanksgiving. There is no time for association outside the KH with meetings, assemblies, conventions, service, family study, personal study and on and on.

  If you are trying to claim that becoming a JW does NOT wreck a family I'd have to tell you that you should either come to grips with the realities of JW life - namely that you trade your real, non JW family for a sanctioned surrogate "family" found at the local KH - or change you beliefs. Own it. If it's too uncomfortable to admit the reality of your religion you have a problem that won't be fixed by rephrasing it in the best light possible.