Posts by Island Man

2

Jehovah's Witnesses exposed on a national television show in Jamaica

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lszimugtlg8

Island Man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSzimUgTLG8

10

Damn Satan at it again tampering with evidence!

by notsurewheretogo in

jeepers...we all know that humans have only been on this planet for 6,000 years...stupid scientists getting confused again...must be that satan bloke who goes round fiddling with all the evidence that humans have been on this planet longer than 6,000 years!.

http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-can-t-explain-who-made-these-huge-8-000-year-old-glyphs-in-kazakhstan?.

back in 2007, a series of huge, mysterious geoglyphs were discovered in the grasslands, or steppes, of kazakhstan.

Island Man

Cool. This is what science is all about--being willing to revise one's beliefs as a result of new evidence.

In stark contrast to religions like Jehovah's Witnesses, who are all about denying evidence, tweaking facts, re-defining words and using foolish logic to maintain their false beliefs in the face of disconfirming evidence.

20

Crazy bible logic

by OverlappingGeneralizations in

i was thinking the other day (i know, i know, bad dub, no thinking allowed!)...

did you ever notice the screwy logic that we are led to believe is the truth?

like ezekiel 33:8:.

Island Man

"When I say to someone wicked, ‘Wicked one, you will surely die!’ but you do not speak out to warn the wicked one to change his course, he will die as a wicked man because of his own error, but I will ask his blood back from you"

What is the principle upon which the one who failed to warn the wicked one, is held responsible for his death? Is it not the principle of not acting to help someone whose wellbeing is in danger? So this bible passage shows us that is immoral to do nothing to help someone who is in danger.

However, in the bible teach book, Watchtower argues that God is innocent of blame for allowing evil things to happen. They say there is a big difference between causing harm and allowing it to happen. Such reasoning is atrocious and contradicts the fundamental principle underpinning the scripture you quoted from Ezekiel.

A person who allows someone to suffer harm without doing anything to help them while having the power to help them is acting immorally. Therefore when the God of the bible sits by and allows all manner of atrocities to befall people when he has the power to stop it - he too is acting immorally. It is only logical. But theists can't admit this inconsistency.

14

The massive gaping hole in Watchtower's understanding of Matthew 25:31-40

by Island Man in

(matthew 25:31-40) .

.when the son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.

32 all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

Island Man

Really, my substantive point is that the sheep cannot be believers because believers would have no reason to ask Jesus in what sense they fed him and clothed him since they would already know the answer to this question being knowledgeable of the account in Matthew 25. Therefore the sheep must be non-christians unfamiliar with the bible passage in Matthew 25.

211

Where are you from?

by BeautifulMind in

jw
friends

i know we are all anonymous for our own personal reasons, so i understand if you would rather not say.

but if you don't mind sharing that would be cool.

i currently live in georgia, usa.

Island Man

The Caribbean

14

The massive gaping hole in Watchtower's understanding of Matthew 25:31-40

by Island Man in

(matthew 25:31-40) .

.when the son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.

32 all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

Island Man

(Matthew 25:31-40) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

What's the gaping hole? The gaping hole is seen if you carefully analyze the words highlighted. Jesus was foretelling events that will happen at the final judgement circa Armageddon. When you carefully analyze the conversation Jesus has with these sheep it becomes apparent that they did not - will not - understand what he means when he will say to them that they fed him; gave him something to eat, drink; clothed him; etc.

But think about it: How could they not understand then if this conversation and Jesus' explanation of what he means was told in advance to his disciples and is recorded in the bible? Just about every christian worth his salt is familiar with this passage and Jesus' explanation of the sense in which the sheep feed him, clothe him, etc. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the sheep must not be christian worshipers since all christians will invariably know what Jesus means when he will tell them that they fed him, seeing as he gave them advanced knowledge of this and it is recorded in the scriptures.

The sheep must therefore be non-christians who treated his followers favorably. This fact is confirmed by Jesus' words: "you did it to one of the least of these my brothers". By addressing the sheep with "you" while referring to his christian brothers as "these" it becomes obvious that Jesus brothers are not included in that group of sheep that Jesus is speaking to. Even if we grant Watchtower the idea of some christians having a lesser earthly hope, then these sheep cannot be these earthly hopers as they will know what Jesus means. Additionally, it will actually be very fitting for such ones to be called by Jesus as the least of his brothers on the basis that they are doing his father's will (which make them his brothers) and have the lesser hope of an earthly paradise (thus the least of his brothers). Thus the least of christ's brothers will actually be an apt term to refer to those of the earthly hope, and not the anointed.

It is apparently these non-christian sheep who will be alive on earth after Armageddon when the devil is abyssed - not christians. This will explain why there are still people on earth to be misled by Satan after the thousand years. Christians have "one hope" - the heavenly one. (Ephesians 4:4) Ignorant non christians who are righteously disposed and treat christians favorably, have the prospect of surviving Armageddon.

14

Recent study links processed meats to cancer

by duc007az in

so a recent study says processed meats are just as dangerous as cigarettes when it comes to cancer.

the wtbs has had a long time stance that smoking is a df offense.

my question is if there's proof beyond doubt, why doesn't the wtbs make eating processed meats a df offense?.

Island Man

I knew about sodium nitrite being a carcinogen, years ago.

20

Mid - Week Meeting This Week

by xjwsrock in

millie210 posted this on another thread - i thought it deserved it's own op:.

i took an elderly friend to the meeting last night.

the study is in the "imitate their faith" book which is merely a compilation of previous short stories about bible characters that were featured in a series of watchtower articles.. they waste no time beginning their spinning and supposition with the cain/abel story.

Island Man

I had 2 serious concerns with this week's meeting - no 3.

1. The Imitate their faith study sought to compare Adam and Eve with Cain by saying Cain followed in their footsteps and by suggesting that Adam and Eve were not good parents. Repeatedly, Watchtower seems to always cast Adam and Eve in a terrible light as being generally terrible people. Yes they committed a serious sin. But that says nothing about their general nature otherwise.

When we objectively examine what the bible says about them - and does not say about them - there is no basis for thinking of them as being thoroughly evil people. David, and Moses both committed serious sins but overall they are viewed as good people. Adam and Eve committed the serious sin of disobeying God and eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. That's the only bad thing the bible says about them. It says nothing else about their nature. This eating of the fruit could have been the one serious sin they committed their whole lives leading to their expulsion and sentence of death, just like Moses' one serious sin when he struck the rock to bring forth water leading to him being barred from entering the promised land.

Watchtower has even likened Adam and Eve to murderers because of the legacy of sin and death they passed on to their offspring. But such characterizations of them is without basis. A murderer is someone who premeditatively and knowingly takes the life of another. Adam and Eve were told that they will die in the very day of their eating of the fruit. There is no evidence to suggest that they knew their sin will bring suffering and death to their offspring. They were only told that they will die if they ate and they had no offspring at the time and may well have thought that they will not live to produce offspring. Comparing them to murderers is wholly unwarranted. They cannot be compared to Cain.

2. Mention is made of Abel noticing the weak, dependent nature of sheep and his role in caring for them and projecting that relationship unto God's shepherding relationship with man. But there is possibly a massive scientific fallacy here. The domesticated food crops and animals that we know today do not have the same characteristics that they had 6000 years ago. For example, the farm cow of today is not the same as its ancestors of thousands of years ago. It's makeup and nature has been modified through selective breeding. The same is true of the banana and quite possibly the sheep. So to speak of Abel noticing the meek, dependent nature of sheep as if sheep 6000 years ago were as meek and dependent as they are today, is foolish.

3. In the oral review, the answer-sheet answer to question 7 is an egregious example of Watchtower spin where they blatantly go beyond what is written to ascribe specific motives to Jabez' prayer requests - motives that are completely made up out of whole cloth and are nowhere to be found in bible verses referenced.

212

Why Do You No Longer Believe in God?

by Tenacious in

i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?

was it the wts and all its crap?

was it something you read?

Island Man

Any belief that requires great effort to maintain isn't worth believing and is probably untrue.

Do you have to work to maintain your belief in the existence of air, gravity, electricity? No, because these phenomena are all provably true.

In the same way, if God's existence were provably true then no effort would be required to maintain belief in him and the prospect of losing faith in him would be as ridiculous as the prospect of losing faith in the existence of air, gravity and electricity.

It is precisely because the existence of God is a very weak concept founded in wishful thinking, and devoid of substantive evidence, that religions have devised notions like the need for faith; studying and meditating on religious literature to strengthen and maintain faith; and avoiding information that has the potential to undermine faith, i.e. logically expose the beliefs as being unfounded and without merit.

No God of love and wisdom worth worshiping would create this kind of scenario where the idea of his existence can only be supported by wishful thinking and logical fallacies; and at the same time his "inspired" writings are contradicted by verifiable scientific evidence

28

How Cultish are the JW's?

by xjwsrock in

first off, i certainly agree the jw's are a cult.

but i'm sensitive to black-and-white thinking now.. so, where do they rank on the scale?

think of a cultish religion scale from 0-10.. consider the likes of unitarian universalism vs baptist vs amish vs charles manson.. where do you think jw's fall on the scale?.

Island Man

I would give them a 7