Posts by Island Man

38

Bible Has Problems, Yet Its One Verse Can Solve All Our Problems!

by abiather in

science shows that humans have been living on earth more than 6000 years (contrary to ot chronology).

again inconsistency is pointed out in nt too which says jesus who did countless good worksincluding control over forces of nature and even death itselfyet people killed him, just like killing the duck that lays golden egg!.

despite such inconsistencies, a single verse in the bible can solve all our problems: don't call anyone on earth 'father,' because you have only one father, the one in heaven.

Island Man

I think you're taking Matthew 23:9 out of context. Having said that though, I like some of the problem-solving suggestions given. The idea of a global universal language intrigues me. Only, I don't think it should be the primary language but as a mandatory secondary language taught in schools from kindergarten to college.

A people's language is intimately linked to their culture and so I don't like the idea of making people switch to a different language. But I think having one universal secondary language would be a nice way to unite all the various cultures the world over in communication without the need for translators and learning several different foreign lanugages in school. Books, films, songs - you name it - can be published in the international language and marketed to the world market instead of having the additional cost of translating in multiple different languages for different regions. Every educated person would be able to travel anywhere and communicate with the local people in a language they both understand - regardless of the differences in native tongues. The whole world would be able to unite in communication while still preserving the rich diversity of their individual native tongues.

The only problem would be getting all the nations to agree on the specific set of phonetics, vocablary, grammar and alphabet/glyph to comprise the language. I imagine that every different language group will be biased to a system that is easy to them but which other groups might find difficult. What I mean is that because of the great divesity of human language it would be difficult to develop one system that all the nations would find easy and agree to. From a phonetic standpoint I think heavy use of onomatopias can be helpfull. I can easily see all nations agreeing to use the pronounciation "meow" for cat, "ruff" for dog, etc because these sounds are universally associated with these animals. However, difficulty would still come when we arrive at expressing abstract concepts. Maybe we should just all learn to speak Mandarin since that's already the most populous language.

12

Glaring terminological inexactitudes in this week's Watchtower study farticle!!

by Island Man in

check out the watchtower's erroneous definitions/descriptions of evolution and creationism in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively on page 7 of the october 15, 2013 watchtower:.

"in its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously.

"on the other hand, fundamentalists of christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old.

Island Man

'" 'Spontaneous' seems a fair word to describe fundamentally what evolution teaches about the origin of life"

yadda yadda 2, I take your point about the definition of the word spontaneous. However, the theory of evolution does not address the question of the origin of life. It only explains how we arrive at the great diversity and complexity of life from a common, *already living* ancestor. The question of the origin of life is tackled by another subject - abiogenesis.

12

Glaring terminological inexactitudes in this week's Watchtower study farticle!!

by Island Man in

check out the watchtower's erroneous definitions/descriptions of evolution and creationism in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively on page 7 of the october 15, 2013 watchtower:.

"in its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously.

"on the other hand, fundamentalists of christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old.

Island Man

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131204074450AA1W6Hk

12

Glaring terminological inexactitudes in this week's Watchtower study farticle!!

by Island Man in

check out the watchtower's erroneous definitions/descriptions of evolution and creationism in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively on page 7 of the october 15, 2013 watchtower:.

"in its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously.

"on the other hand, fundamentalists of christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old.

Island Man

Check out the Watchtower's erroneous definitions/descriptions of Evolution and Creationism in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively on page 7 of the October 15, 2013 Watchtower:

"In its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously. . ."

"On the other hand, fundamentalists of Christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old. Those who teach this doctrine - known as creationism - may have high regard for the Bible, but they contend that God created all things in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago."

Are they accurately describing the teachings of evolution and creationism. Aren't JWs creationists according to the standard dictionary definition of the term? Does the theory of evolution really teach that all life came into existence spontaneously?

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

Island Man

This thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

.

.

.

Faith = good and moral. Lack of faith = bad and immoral. (This one leads into a whole host of others. Such as a person of faith is BETTER THAN a person of non-faith. More loving; more generous; more trustworthy.)

Well tec, I agree with you that not all theists subscribe to the thinking in bold above. However, given that a large percentage of theists do - I'm willing to bet the majority of them - how can you honestly say that atheists are at fault for thinking theists believe that? I think you might be making the mistake of appointing your own minority view (the correct view) as being representative of the views of all theists, when in truth and in fact the view in bold above is the more prevalent and representative view among theists in general.

To illustrate my point: imagine there is a JW who does not follow the JW organization's teachings to shun dissassociated ones. This JW then claims that non-JWs are mistaken in thinking that JWs shun disassocaited ones by citing his own minority viewpoint on the matter as if that were true of all or even most JWs. This is synonymous with what you're doing.

You are reasoning that since you and some other theists don't believe "Faith = good and moral. Lack of faith = bad and immoral" then atheists who beleive that theists beleive that are mistaken. This reasoning is a fallacy because it ignores the fact that most theists actually do subscribe to the erroneous view that you and a minority of other theists reject. I have heard many a theist argue against atheism by using the argument that lack of faith in God means there is no basis for morality and that atheism thus leads to an amoral life.

I'm sorry tec but your point as made is incorrect. What you could say is that atheists would be wrong to think that all theists subscribe to the particular viewpoint. But you can't fault them for thinking that theists in general subscribe to that viewpoint.

1

Who will win The Voice?

by Island Man in

my favourite to win is tessanne chin.. secret hideaway:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3apbcymcg4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu34s07okgi.

Island Man

My favourite to win is Tessanne Chin.

Secret Hideaway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3apBCymCg4

Try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu34S07okgI

Unconditionally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgf9t9uj5NI

34

I know TTATT... so why do JW apologists still scare me?

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

another of my rants.... .

why am i still scared when i read something that the jw's have written?

why does it still upset me to read jw literature?

Island Man

Cult indoctrination can be a powerful thing. Sometimes, even after your conscious, rational mind has awakened your subconscious, irrational mind could still be asleep and vulnerable to emotional control.

It may also be that you're not fully convinced about TTATT. You may still need to make The Truth About The Truth your own - more deeply.

Another factor could be continued belief in bible-based theism. The JWs teachings on Armageddon and other subjects that induce your fear are based on their interpretations of the bible. As long as you still believe the bible, there is always the potential for you to wonder at the back of your mind if what they're saying could be true after all as they're using an authority you still respect - the bible. Do you still believe in God and the bible?

Having done enough research on the subject of religion in general I'm now an atheist and hence have absolutely no fear from anything they print or say. Not only do I know TTATT but I also know TTAR. I'm not trying to encourage you to become an Atheist (although you owe it to yourself to do some honest, objective research into religion if you haven't already done so). I'm just telling you why you could be feeling the way you do while I'm not. Even if you're still convinced about theism, your knowing that it can cause you to doubt TTATT can in itself help you to better cope with and overcome your doubts.

24

Can anyone explain love?

by mrhhome in

jw
friends

we have had a variety of theist vs atheist debates on this forum.

usually, it devolves (or evolves?

) into a debate on what can or cannot be proven.. so let's step back a second.

Island Man

Love is selfishness in its most noble and dignified form. Love pleases the lover - a fact that is necessarily implied by the maxim: "there is more happiness in giving than there is in recieving". The selfishness of love is also seen in the way a person mourns the loss of a loved one. The dead person is in no pain, no suffering, but simply lifeless. Why the mourning then? The bereaved has forever lost an object of his deep spiritual pleasure. He is mourning a lost that he (the bereaved) has sustained. It is selfish.

But that isn't to say that love is bad. As I said at the outset love is selfishness at its most noble. What separates love from traditional selfishness is that love derives personal pleasure from seeking the interests of the loved, whereas traditional selfishness is willing to derive personal pleasure at the expense of the interests of others.

Seeing love as being inherently selfish, as it indeed is, demystifies it and removes any superstitious notions of divinity that many seem to ascribe to it. It helps us to realize that there really isn't anything remarkable about an inherently selfish quality existing in a natural world of creatures with selfish motives. Love only seems divine and unexplainable in nature, to those who fail to grasp that love is ultimately selfish/self-serving.

37

The elders came by and my DA letter

by Crazyguy in

the lead elder co of my hall said he was going to push for a jc meeting.

i could tell all along all hes interested in is protecting his god the org.. so i'm 90% sure now of going on the offesive and first having a family meeting telling them i'm offically quitting and how its going to play out and how i'll will be shunned even though i have commited no sin.

i also may explain a little of why and how i came to this decision with out bashing the org to much out of respect for my wife.

Island Man

A great letter, CrazyGuy! Let me just suggest a few minor corrections:

In the second paragraph of your letter, you wrote:

"Jesus told Nicodemus that if one is not re-born in water and spirit then one cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven."

You should replace "kingdom of Heaven" with "kingdom of God". The bible says "Kingdom of God". Saying "Kingdom Of Heaven" would only justify their position that only those going to heaven should partake whereas "Kingdom of God" allows for the reasoning that those they claim are of the earthly class, should also be partaking. You see, a Kingdom is not solely a government headed by a king. A kingdom is a territory governed by a king - the government AND the subjects governed.

Additionally, in your last paragraph, in the phrase bolded, you should underline "him" instead of "through" as I take it that you're implicitly contrasting the idea of coming to Jehovah through Jesus as opposed to coming to him through an organization.

51

New Handbill Campaign

by NoRegrets in

apparently the jws are doing a new handbill campaign.

they were just at my door and offered it to me with one of their heartless and scripted presentations.

the religion has just become so dumbed down.

Island Man

factfinder: If they are increasing the tract campagns its to cut costs.

They will cut back on book, brochure & magazine production, and increase the use of tracts.

They have already cut back on book production. Wallkill printed only 17 million books last year compared to 28 million in 2009.

This could be true. The new arrangment of counting tracts does seem to indicate that they intend to increase the focus on, and importance of, placing tracts.

Could this new arrangement be a prelude to the next step in cutting printing costs? We have seen how the magazines have already dramatically reduced in size to the point of now being embarrassingly thin. Perhaps, seeing that they can't possibly reduce the size of the magazines any further, they have devised a new face-saving scheme of cutting printing costs - place less magazines. Oh, but how do you justify placing less "life-saving" information to people in this "time of the end"? Simple: shift the focus from offering magazines to offering the much smaller and cheaper to produce tracts and put a positive spin on it - something like:

"To All Congregations:

Dear brothers,

Jesus taught his followers to not waste food. He also cautioned them against casting their pearls before swine. (John 6:12; Matthew 7:6) His words would especially apply to the life-saving spiritual food we share with persons in our ministry. To this end, we will no longer be initially offering the magazines to every person we call on as is now customarily done on a Magazine Day. Instead, we will focus on initially offering tracts to persons we meet. Only after a person accepts a tract with sincere interest, or specifically asks for the magazines, or gives a monetary donation, will we then offer the magazines to him. Naturally, we will still inform the householder that the tracts are without cost but that our work is supported by voluntary contributions.

Effective xx/xx/xx, the special Magazine Day arrangement for placing magazines will be replaced with a special Tract Day arrangement. Additionally, all congregation magazine quotas will be reduced by two thirds at the next shipment. Thereafter, congregations can make a request for an adjustment in their quota according to their local needs as determined by the level of interest being shown by persons in their territory.

This new arrangement will enable us to continue sharing life-saving information with persons worldwide while minimizing the wasteage that results when literature is placed with those showing little or no interest in spiritual things.

We send you our warm love and christian greetings

The Governing Body"