if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
I assume the christian you talk about is aristoteles?
Aristotle? His image of the universe was mostly wrong, and christian and islamic cosmology both remained largely wedded to it through the late antique and medieval periods. It was mainly in the late 13th and 14th century that other models became conceivable and through which Copernicus was able to develop his ideas.
this weeks km disscusses the topic of why jehovah's witnesses are not false prophets.. on page 136 and 137 of the reasoning book, it asks and answers the following question:.
have not jehovahs witnesses made errors in their teachings?.
jehovahs witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets.
Matters on which corrections of viewpoint have been needed have been relatively minor when compared with the vital Bible truths that they have discerned and publicized.
Of course 'minor' and 'vital' are defined by the watchtower society...
Really every current doctrine is 'vital' because you can get disfellowshipped for disagreeing with any one of them, not just those listed in the Reasoning Book.
if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
Indeed. It was only when people were able to shake off the tyranny of religious dogma that discovery began.
Darwin completed the revolution that Copernicus began.
Huh? Copernicus wasn't an isolated visionary, he studied at (christian) universities and built on theoretical and mathematical work in astronomy and the science of motion (by christians) dating back to the early thirteenth century, without which his thought would have had no theoretical basis.
i'm not, even a little bit and i don't understand what the outrage is all about..
I am outraged!
...
That she could get paid for that incompetent flailing.
does printing and administrative work carry on as normal throughout the year without regard to christmas, new year, public and bank holidays in the various bethel premises throughout the world?.
it is a bank holiday tomorrow in most of the uk so will london bethel be working as normal?
.
From memory, bethelites get 12 days holiday a year not including public holidays!
can't seem to find anything about this in the reasoning book.
what do jehovah's witnesses usually say / instructed to say to try and get athiests interesteds in joining?.
JW training is mainly focussed on converting current christians by proving to them that their beliefs are 'non-biblical.' Perhaps this focus is a part of their decreased growth in the increasingly secular west?
if you believe what is officially stated on the jw website, jws are not creationists.
.
the fact that the exact jw belief is in fact specifically called "day-age creationism" seems to have alluded them.
The jw.org FAQs often work by answering a strawman question.
So they respond to the question 'Are you a creationist?' by answering the question 'Are you a Young Earth Creationist?'
My favourite is the one on 'Do you feel you are the only ones that will be saved?' Where they explain that they don't, because some non-JWs may yet become JWs and then they will also get saved! As if anyone only means current JWs when they ask that question...
there were a lot of wannabee elders and ministerial servants in the congregations.
if you were a male and baptized, it was expected that you "reach out".
everyone wanted to have a position.. wives and mothers of men wanted representation too.
I never wanted to become an MS enough to do the 10 hours a month service, I became an MS because my Dad tended to put my report in and usually exaggerated my hours.
visiting the casino yesterday with friends, we agree to meet.
up for lunch.
we are seated in the casino buffet (five folks), one.
I,m sorry, but that got to be last place for God to hear your pray.
Why is that? Do you think the Watchtower are right when they say God hates gambling? Maybe he's actually a big fan, did your friend make any money?
(Assumingly he was praying to thank God for the food rather than to make casino winnings!)
he just can't seem to stop himself taunting "these muslims" or "some muslim or other".
among his favourite taunts are:.
"all the world's muslims have fewer nobel prizes than trinity college, cambridge.".
Caedes:
I have read the book, though as I said I no longer have a copy, but I think I am mainly referring to chapters 6 and 8. I didn't put much thought into my original comment, though I am not backing away from it, but I will flesh it out a bit more, with the disclaimer that as I don't have a copy of the book I am writing from memory. Firstly I also want to add that Dawkins is obviously a very intelligent man (certainly far more so than I!) he's a great writer and he has helped me a lot in understanding the flaws in my Watchtower learned position on evolution. It's just that when he makes comments like that posted by sbf in his OP, I don't know why anyone would claim of him something like he is the greatest mind of our time (vm44's article)
Regarding my specific objection, whilst I think Dawkins accepts that religion can play a role in good choices, he downplays it significantly and attempts to argue (chapter 6?) that most of our good actions are due to a kindness and compassion that we have evolved as a survival mechanism and have little to do with faith. On its own I don't think this is that strong an argument, whilst I certainly accept that nonbelievers can do very good things, that religion is not the only source of good morals and that evolution may have played a role in this, I would point to the example of the pagan religions in the Roman empire as a counterpoint. Prior to the spread of Christianity, charitable giving was very rare in the Roman empire. Christianity has of course never been perfect, but with its religious belief in Jesus commands to do good, and doctrines on the value of all peoples, it practically invented charity in the West. If good actions were mainly a result of natural processes, than surely one religion could not have made such a difference to the way the poor, widows and orphans etc... were treated and viewed.
However, this argument becomes worse, imo, when Dawkins tries to argue (chapter 8?) that the reasons why he is so opposed to religion is because it so often causes terrible and violent actions. But isn't this inconsistent? Either faith can inspire good and bad actions (which I would think should call for a more balanced view of faith) or good and bad actions are primarily caused by various evolutionary factors, in which case faith has little to do with it either way.
