Posts by adamah

31

Will Moses have time for you in the New World?

by bats in the belfry in

.

2014 the watchtower, april 15, page 6.

adamah

Pixel said- And he still has a cane in the New System????

That's his staff which he used to part the Red Sea, of course....

What a lovely artistic depiction of a childish fantasy, LOL!

What a thought: Moses regaling every survivor individually, with endless recountings of his 'glory days' when he parted the Red Sea to get away from the Pharoah (even demonstrating while standing on a tropical beach, perhaps parting the Pacific Ocean)? He'll have PLENTY of time, since he has an eternity to get to every last person on Earth!

Won't it be a grand time in the New System when Jehovah is able to perform miracles only for the personal amusement of individuals? Signs and miracles will be able to be performed without concern, since their supposedly-damaging effects on faith will no longer be of any concern, since in the New System there is no longer any need for faith, since the promised events (i.e. resurrection) would've already actually occurred.

On the other hand, since there's no longer any need for faith, it would be rather pointless to tolerate listening guys like Moses recounting their war stories for the kajillionth time: per Hebrews 11, the whole point of those Bible stories is to BUILD one's faith, and as I just said, there's no longer any need to do that AFTER the promised events have occurred!

Adam

15

Freedom From Atheism Foundation

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

in the interests of being fair, i feel i have to point out this facebook page.

after one minute of reading, i located at least one lie regarding the tyt or young turks presenter cenk.

they said he was an atheist so i pointed out that this is not correct as he self identifies as an agnostic.

adamah

Seraphim said- Why anyone would start a “Freedom From Atheism Foundation” is beyond me?

Have you not read your own Bible, eg the lovely passages such as, "the fool says in their heart there is no God"?

Note the expression, "says in their heart": that's a phrase that means NOT to verbalize that concepts to others, but it means to THINK it, to CONSIDER it.

In ancient Israel, voicing that sentiment out loud to others was a sin against God that violated one of the 10 commandments and was a death penalty offense; any atheist who dared say it out loud was simply stoned to death for commiting the blasphemy of suggesting Jehovah didn't exist.

In later Judaism (i.e. when under control of the Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc), believers weren't allowed to kill others under Hebraic law by their overlords (who conquered their land and imposed their own rules), so the Jews eventually turned to the non-lethal practice of shunning. Xianity however was eventually adopted by secular authorities in Rome, and the Roman gov't had no problem executing those who were foolish enough to publicly commit blasphemy by saying there was no God or Jesus.

The practice continued until the recent past, when the Age of Enlightment began to introduce the concept of freedom of religion (including the right to be an atheist, i.e. freedom FROM religion).

Until even recently, blasphemy was still considered a crime that warranted death; the last person executed in the UK for blasphemy was Thomas Aikenhead, a 20 yr old Scottish student from Edinburgh who publicly insulted God by comparing the Holy Bible to Aesop's fables, and being amazed at the populace's inability to see through the motives of the Church.

From Wikipedia page, he wrote this on the morning of his execution:

On the morning of 8 January 1697, Thomas wrote to his 'friends' that "it is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth, and to seek for it as for hid treasure. . . So I proceeded until the more I thought thereon, the further I was from finding the verity I desired. . ."

Although not executed, punishment for blasphemy continued in UK up until 1922, with the imprisonment of John Gott, who dared to publicly criticize Xianity.

The United Kingdom finally abolished its laws against blasphemy (which were 'dead letter' laws anyway) in England and Wales only five years ago, in 2008!

Adam

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

adamah

Earnest said-

Paul wrote to Timothy not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and so whether Kate used a noun as an adjective or had the wrong tense or any of your other complaints her simple query was whether God has human characteristics.

The OP was so discombobulated, it left many other posters (who actually understand what these literary terms actually mean) confused by Kate's confusion.

I passed on the entire discussion, as I wrote it off as simply containing too many issues to address, until Kate continued to perpetuate her manipulation of Einstein's words (which is all good now, since she's acknowledged the problem, and promised not to do it anymore).

I had to back-track and try to lay the groundwork on what a'ism actually means, etc, but helping others to learn via interaction is the goal of a discussion site like JWN, so people at least have a chance to learn stuff the right way, and not merely propagate their misunderstandings to others (as JWs do, by knocking on doors and acting as if they have the Truth). So it's hardly quibbling, and the words we use matter, since people confusing other people for fun and profit has consequences, sometimes even fatal (eg JWs die over blood policy).

Anyway, you raised an interesting issue when you said-

Earnest said- If God is indeed uninvolved in the earth and what goes on in it, and has not revealed himself in any way (apart from the marvels of science), then we have simply ascribed human characteristics to God whether he has them or not.

And that sounds like the description of a deistic God, which then implies the Bible (which describes a human-like God who wants to be BFF with each and every last one of us, so we can have a personal relationship with Him and his son) is pure fiction, since Abrahamic God of the Bible is NOT deistic in any way, shape or form.

That's trying to change the God concept into some ill-defined being, and only engaging in circumlocution to giving him name like Supreme Being, the God of Nature, the Grand Architect, etc. It sounds like a concept of men, who simply are unable to accept Bible God, but cannot get over their addiction to a God they can conceive of, even if it means giving names to the properties that make God inconceivable (eg ineffable).

Earnest said- On the other hand, if God has revealed himself as the Bible indicates then I suggest that the use of human characteristics to describe him are as close as we can get but we have no chance of really comprehending the greater picture.

Again, as I said above, Isaiah 55 is an example of the Bible's covering all positions on the craps table, so something is guaranteed to work.

Isaiah 55 was an attempt to convert God into a more deistic-like being, who's ALSO inconceivable (eg ineffable) while the Torah depicts a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent God who was quite fallable and couldn't foresee outcomes of future events (i.e. in Genesis 6, God expressed regret for making man and animals that He just made earlier, in Genesis 1/2, so He wiped them all out in the Flood; afterwards, He regretted wiping the Earth clean with a Flood, so created a rainbow as His promise not to do it again, in Genesis 9). Genesis is riddled with God's limits, but suddenly becomes the all-powerful God in Isaiah? God evolved!

So my question to you is:

How does one discriminate between a deistic God (which was admittedly defined by the minds of men in the 17th century) in one case, or an anthropomorhized God of the Bible (which was admittedly defined by the minds of men of 1,000 BC) in the other?

Adam

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.

adamah

TEC said- Maybe you should have read that warning before you hit submit.

Adam said- Anyway, that counter is (yet another) variation of a theme of your favorite argument, the "Tu Quoque" ("but you do it, too!) defense. Did you say that as if to prove my point that you engage in childlike reasoning at times?

TEC said- I did not use this 'tu quoque" 'but you did it too' defense. You are adding the 'too'.

TEC, you've gotta be shittin' me, right?

You've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that not only do you do not understand the basic fallacies used in contemporary logic, but you also didn't pay attention in your Junior High School literature class (never-mind bothering to take a course in Latin!) to know what 'tu' means in Latin, eg when Julius Caesar asked the question, 'Et TU, Brutus?" after someone who he thought was his friend had betrayed him and stabbed him, along with all the other Senators?

'Tu' in Latin means, 'too'.

('Et' means 'you', FWIW)

Now look at your words again which I quoted above, and you should be able to see your words are a CLASSIC example of 'tu quoque', since your statement implied I didn't take my own advice (i.e. the graphic warning to avoid talking out of one's arse), and hence you accused me of playing the "tu quoque" card.

HOWEVER, I'm not the one who's talking out of my arse.

Whether you're talking about baby teeth, living waters, or death being personified in Exodus, it's pure silly-string.

On the latest jewel about death personified in Exodus, ancient Jews had no moral problems conceiving of God's heavenly angels delivering death, after being sent to Earth as avenging angels, eg that was the role of the two angels who accompanied Jehovah to Earth to visit Abraham; they went on while leaving God to look the other way to deliver "righteous" Lot and family so the fireworks could begin, after they were ordered by God to destroy and kill the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The avenging angels causing the deaths of first-born ten of both man and beasts wasn't even an eyebrow raiser, since it was absolutely a moral cake-walk for ancient Jews.

Heck, that was the entire premise behind Satan originally, as seen in the account of Job. 'Satan' is actually a title or a job description (in Hebrew, Satan means 'accuser'), and it's NOT a pronoun or personal name; the role explains why Satan was found in Heaven, serving as a member of the Jehovah's Divine Counsel (Hebrew, Elohim, a plural word, referring to many members of the Team), since Satan WAS a member of God's Team AFTER the Fall (since Job lived AFTER Adam and Eve's fall), and Satan had to ask permission from God to authorize and approve of all of Satan's actions.

Heck, look up destroying angel sometime.

TEC said- Yes, it is also hypocrisy to judge/rebuke someone for doing something that you, yourself, do.

The "tu quoque" fallacy is used as a defense AFTER been caught red-handed, as a weak-sauce excuse attempt to justify the offense by pointing out how the other party does the same. It's an ACCUSATION of hypocrisy, or attempting to shift focus off one's self .

NOW, show me where I've been hypocritical above (i.e. where I've committed ANY tuo quoques; hint: I haven't) since otherwise, your charge of my being hypocritical fails, too.

Adam

51

Jehovah's Witness juror - The actions of this juror are a complete disgrace, said Prince Georges County States Attorney Angela Alsobrooks.

by Sol Reform in

http://www.csnwashington.com/article/juror-email-leads-mistrial.

juror email leads to mistrial.

that juror now faces a possible contempt of court charge.the trial of a man involved in a high speed crash that killed a prince george's county police officer last year ended in a mistrial.. one of the jurors told the judge via email thursday morning that judging others was a violation of her religion as a jehovah's witness, news4's prince george's county bureau chief tracee wilkins reported.. kevon darnell neal, 23, was charged with vehicular manslaughter and fleeing and eluding following the death of officer adrian morris, 23.. morris and his partner were pursuing a stolen silver acura when their cruiser ran off interstate 95 near the powder mill road exit in august 2012. morris died after being ejected from the vehicle.

adamah

Alsobrooks said during jury selection, every juror was asked whether they would be unable to serve because of their religion, and the juror in question did not mention her religion. During a discussion between the juror, judge and attorneys Thursday morning, Alsobrooks said the woman cited not knowing the defendant and not "having a dog in this fight" as other reasons she could not serve.

Holy Hades.... What an inopportune moment to experience a crisis of conscience, and then find the court isn't as tolerant of the addle-brained.

The good news is, if the judge decides to hold her in contempt of court, her eternally-primed JW persecution complex will likely turn that into the work of Satan and his demons.

7

Justice needs to be seen to be done

by usualusername in

jw
friends

in the uk if you commit a crime the judge will hand you down a sentence based on guidelines.

fair enough.. .

if you commit the same crime and a newspaper editor chooses to make you front pages news your sentence will be longer based on the fact that justice needs to be seen to be done.. .

adamah

The answer depends on what benefit you see punishment as serving in society.

If you think of "justice being served" in the sense of the guilty party being punished so vengeance is delivered on behalf of the victim for the crime, then NO; publicity shouldn't enter into the picture, since the punishment is for retribution/retaliation only.

HOWEVER, if you look at "justice being served" with punishment exerting some sort of preventative effect on society (where the punishment delivered sends a strong warning to those who may have heard of the crime and are considering doing the same act to another), then YES, since greater publicity means the original crime was broadcast widely, and stiffer punishment is warranted in order to have greater deterrence value.

Adam

6

The Pope believes "All religions are true"...

by Joepublisher1 in

well, here's the latest hoax going around the jw community and many jws are irresponsibly passing along this multi-faceted hoax about the new pope, as fact!

it's disturbing that a jw will buy into these hoaxes if it's received by a brother/sister.

they just don't seem to learn there lesson either (i.e.

adamah

Joe said-

I'm sure this is an effort by some JWs to spread doubt about the Pope's leadership - remember how they teach the wild beast will turn on false religion(?). It's just wrong to spread hoaxes as "fact" and most JWs never do any vetting about the accuracy of these stories. Just pass it along and if you get one of these hoaxes from a bro or sis, it must be true - NOT NECESSARILY!

Yeah, I saw that eyebrow-raising claim the other day about what Pope Francis supposedly said, and Googled "Pope Francis hoax" to find many sites that confirmed it was silly-string.

No doubt many JWs will perpetuate the hoax without any thought, since anyone who's not aware of the dynamic is most likely to be suckered by those very claims they most WANT to be true, and will pass it along. They're only providing tiny morsels of sweet lil' lies to feed the unquenchable thirst hunger of confirmation biases of others.

There's good reason believers are particularly suspectible to such urban legends: instead of denouncing it, they cherish their faith (AKA gullibility, except wearing a priest's robe to give the concept some credibility). You cannot turn rational thinking on and off, or expect it to operate in one domain only, and not have it spill over into other areas of your life.

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Cofty said-

Asserting that leaving a quarter of a million innocent people to drown is a mystery, while also claiming that god heals their athelete's foot or whisps banal nonsense in their ears is rank hypocrisy.

And that's where our points are now converging: believers engage in rampant post-hoc rationalizations (whether for perceived blessings OR for perceived punishments) by selecting a fitting scripture, based on THEIR current wants and desires.

For tragedy befalling a fellow believer, the other believers select from the following buffet menu of options:

1) They weren't actually as good as they seemed to be, but had committed some unknown sins in secret for which God is now punishing them. God punishes the evil-doer, even those who cover their sins from other humans.

2) They were good and hadn't committed any sins for which they're now being punished, but as the Bible says, "unforeseen events befall all".

There's an answer for every need, since the Bible is like a Hallmark Card Store, filled with a card carrying a sentiment designed to express every need and occasion.

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Caliber said-

So because a hockey captain is given authorization for certain things it means that he can challange the coach and team owner for total power and authority?

Caliber, you seem to be confusing the terms 'delegation' and 'abdication'; I used the term delegation for a very good reason, since God delegated His Divine authority to mankind to decide certain moral issues, and actually authorized mankind to punish OTHER moral issues (eg adultery or homosexuality, where the prescribed punishment was death).

Delegation is a post-hoc (improvised) system, where the delegate can screw up and be removed from their position by the one who delegated their powers to them. It happens ALL the time in the OT, where a certain King disappointed Jehovah by failing to perform up to snuff, and suppoedly was booted out of their job. In fact, the entire basis of the OT is a series of stories that excuse God's seeming failure to act on behalf of His Chosen People, by engaging in the same-old excusiologies of blaming the victims, etc.

Administering a system of criminal justice requires exercising independent morality and thinking, which is kind of the irony: all believers exercise independent morality when consulting the Bible, since the decision of which scriptures to rely upon involves the use of discretion and judgment. Hence believers only need to hunt-and-peck for a scripture which justifies the act they wanted to do, anyway, where there's a scripture to justify seemingly every action. The only question is if you can get anyone else to agree to your post-hoc rationalizations, which is why the GB is the only authorized party who gets to interpret God's will.

In fact, since the Bible makes a point of repeatedly proclaiming how horribly-flawed a human's moral compass is (to point to the need to rely on God's "superior" morality), then HOW did believers make the decision that God's morality WAS IN FACT SUPERIOR to theirs, in the first place, without making a moral decision that required use of their "flawed" moral compass?

Could THAT decision to trust God's morality in fact be WRONG? If they answer anything but 'yes', then they're intellectually-dishonest, since it's a catch-22, a logical inconsistency, since the believer wants to have their cake and eat it, too, when a rational person could see the two positions are mutually-exclusive.

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Cofty said- "Its a mystery" or other similar prevarications are not admissible.

Actually, claiming that it's a mystery would be OK, since it's basically saying, "I don't know".

HOWEVER, most believers would be better off by just saying, "I don't know, but I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt, and declaring Him as innocent anyway".

To play believer's advocate, though, it would actually be acceptable and in accord with the principles of law, since the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to make their case to prove guilt (i.e. using the principle of "innocent until proven guilty").

Of course, it's impossible to prove a fictional character guilty of anything, since..... uh, it's a fictional character.

And we're back to the need of believers to exercise skeptical thinking by rejecting claims of Gods existence BEFORE examining evidence, and accepting it as an article of faith as if it's true.

Adam