God is the foundation for all my beliefs in creationism. I don't research creationism and evolution to justify my belief in him. He reafirms and solidifies them. A single deity in control with an absolute and perfect agenda is central to my faith. I do hold to the belief that this world is physically and spiritually out of balance. God will correct this in his own time. Faith in a God is difficult if not impossible to prove in the scientific realm. I only seek to reenforce this with my research.
nakedmvistar
JoinedPosts by nakedmvistar
-
72
CREATIONISM----F.Y.I
by nakedmvistar inin the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.
both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.
" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.
-
-
-
72
CREATIONISM----F.Y.I
by nakedmvistar inin the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.
both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.
" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.
-
-
nakedmvistar
Many points of view....back and forth. Dolphin also has his own agenda but I find his articles intriguing nonetheless.
-
31
BIZARRO ARTICLE...LOONEY!!
by nakedmvistar infound this article on the net....i thought it to be the weirdest thing i have ever read.. by diana huston.
i was a member of a mind control cult religion for 20 years.
the religion is known as the watchtower bible and tract society, otherwise known as jehovah's witnesses.
-
-
nakedmvistar
Found this article on the net....I thought it to be the weirdest thing I have EVER read.
by Diana Huston
I was a member of a mind control cult religion for 20 years. The religion is known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I started with them in 1969, being attracted to their message of paradise on earth after having gone through the Vietnam war with my husband.I had two children whom I raised as Witnesses. But thankfully they are out now. I was happy for a few years, until the religion became more demanding and controlling.
In 1987 there began to appear in the artwork subliminal drawings in their books and magazines depicting bizarre faces and strange messages. Eventually I experienced a psychic awakening by which I was enabled to actually 'see' through walls and able to follow the activities of the leaders.
In September of 1988, at a small convention, I had a chance to walk up to one of the governing body 'elect' to speak to him privately. At that time I thought that they were the 'good' guys and someone was run amuck at headquarters. He was about 5'10". He had dark hair, heavy and powerfully built. His name was Daniel Sedlik and his was of Polish origin. As I reached out to shake his hand, he turned to return the shake. I looked into his eyes and was startled and somewhat terrified to see a thin membrane drop over his human eyes. I don't know if the membrane came from the bottom of his eyelid, or the top. But it was there, and I'd never heard of lizard beings, but I remember thinking how much his eyes looked like those of a lizard. The membrane dropped over his eyes when he looked at me and he seemed to recognize me, although at the time I couldn't imagine why. The sense of terrible danger that I had and the need to get away from him was overwhelming. Thankfully, others of the 'flock' spotted him and kept him from following me.
It was after that that a reign of terror began against myself and my family. My telephone was tapped and I was followed. Also a series of what I now know were psychic attacks began. This kept up unmercifully for several years. I finally learned to protect myself and I began a path of awakening. I am not a weak or cowardly person, and I was deeply offended that, as I understood it, these people were using the cover of religion to hide illegal activities.
As I researched their documents and books, I began to uncover a trail of drug running, plots to destroy the world and take it for their own, and arms running. Even down to the local congregation being used as a route for drug smuggling. I took my mountains of evidence to the DEA and met with them. Their response? Either I was a genius or totally insane. I learned that they had hidden rooms under the streets of Brooklyn, NY where they have their headquarters where the old Brooklyn subway used to be, which is now abandoned. There they practice Satanic ritual, including the sacrifices of human infants and the breeding of human females in order to keep the demand up of infants for their sacrifices. They are totally self-sufficient, and they use blood in the ink of their magazines. They make their own ink. The purpose of this is that if they can get their magazines into the homes of people, the vibrations of the magazines begin to break down the will and mind of those who have their magazines and books in their home. I warn people on a personal level never to allow their materials into their homes.
A friend and myself tried warning people through the news media with no success. She finally had a complete nervous breakdown and has never fully recovered.
Eventually I came to understand that the leaders are not fully human, but are the offspring of something alien to this earth. They are too cunning, lethal, and intelligent to have originated from here, and there has to be an overrace of beings guiding them from some dimension. They are here for one reason only. They look at humans as a source of enslavement for their enjoyment to torment and abuse, to misuse power and to cruelly punish and kill.
I have overcome my fear of them, and I look to the love and goodness of the Source of All Life to deal with them appropriately, although we must do our part to stand opposed to them and anyone like them. My own personal experience very much validates David Ickes warnings.
-
84
Should I have a Christmas tree?
by scuba99 inhi folks,.
i'm rather new here, only posted a couple of times.
although i have been visiting the site daily for a good 2 months now.
-
-
nakedmvistar
Europe,
Do you even believe in God? If not then we cannot argue about celebrations or anything else that pertains to belief or doctrine....We can go back and forth all day long and it wouldn't satisfy anything. I believe God is very exacting in what he requires of us. Did I pick this up by reading some of the jw's material? Do I sound like those horrible jw's? I majored in religious studies and they truly aren't the only ones who espouse to such beliefs. I do hold to some of the JW's beliefs, I don't deny that, but I don't hold an allegiance to there "organization" either. I simply research and extract what I feel is factual about different belief systems. Your right though, most people don't think about or care whether a celebration ritual comes from pagan origins. My PERSONAL OPINION <<< is that maybe they should. I believe this is satan's handy work which further dillutes and confuses man in his walk with God. ---I don't believe there's anything wrong with setting a day aside for gift giving or whatever just not under the lie, for those who celebrate it, of a "CHRISTIAN" holiday. There are OTHER religions, europe, if you didn't already know that also hold to this same belief! It's not just those 'Horrible" JW's......look it up. And if your just going to tell me "I'm going to celebrate it anyway, who cares", then don't reply....I'd rather not waste the energy reading it.
-
34
Occult symbol in the WTS literature?
by Nordic in.
here is a link .
www.bigwig.net/knots/nightmares/occult.htm try it.
-
-
nakedmvistar
What?
-
72
CREATIONISM----F.Y.I
by nakedmvistar inin the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.
both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.
" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.
-
-
nakedmvistar
In 1981, the United States National Academy of Sciences passed a resolution saying that "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief." The statement was intended only for use in a public-relations campaign against the creation science movement, and it has never been invoked against evolutionary pantheists, agnostics, or scientific materialists. For example, the Academy makes no protest when Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) uses the authority of science to promote atheism, or when physicists promote a "theory of everything" that will allow its possessors to "know the mind of God," or when Carl Sagan proclaimed in his Cosmos series that "the Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be." On the contrary, the National Academy gave Sagan its Public Welfare medal.
Chet Raymo is another in the long line of scientific metaphysicians who yearn to make a religion out of science; and so he argues that Christians should adopt for religious purposes what he calls "the new creation story." His description of the new story is more in poetic than scientific language, as befits an admirer of Teilhard de Chardin, but he clearly is referring to the standard version of evolutionary naturalism. According to this story, nature did its own creating through unintelligent material processes, particularly the purposeless Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. God was involved if at all only in the very beginning, in setting up the laws, and thereafter nature runs by itself. In Raymo's words, nature itself "becomes the sublime scripture," humans are viewed as the universe becoming conscious of itself through evolution, and prayer consists of rejecting miracles while giving praise and thanksgiving to nature.
The National Academy's motives may have been partisan, but there is clearly some truth in its warning that mixing science with religion can produce a highly intoxicating brew. Teilhard's comment that "less and less do I see any difference between research and adoration," which Raymo quotes with approval, is about as far from the ideal of scientific > objectivity as one can go. When scientists begin to worship their own concepts, they are tempted to proclaim vast philosophical systems rather than stick to what the data is showing.
So it was with Teilhard, and so it is with evolution-worshipers generally. The first thing to understand about Raymo's "new story" is that scientists cannot prove that known natural forces can produce complex biological organisms. They assume this crucial and highly debatable fact, regardless of the evidence. No one has demonstrated that chemical evolution can produce life in the first place. Indeed this field is in a state of confusion and cannot even begin to account for the information content of the simplest organisms. Despite what you were told in school and in countless public television nature programs, natural selection has no substantial creative power. Ask for evidence and all you will get are examples of trivial variations in fundamentally stable populations. Look at the fossils and you will see a general pattern of unexplained sudden appearances of new forms of life followed by stasis - meaning the absence of fundamental evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinism is more accurately classified as materialist mythology than as science.
The highly regarded Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin explained the true basis of evolutionary science in a remarkably candid essay in the New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997). Lewontin has as low an opinion of the adaptationist "just-so" stories of the neo-Darwinists as I do. In spite of his skepticism, however, he accepts the basic story of evolutionary naturalism because, in his own words,
We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
If you are going to define science as applied materialist philosophy, then of course you are going to end up with a materialist creation story, one that excludes the possibility of a personal God who created us and answers prayer. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that this new story has been validated by scientific testing. The important questions are all decided in the assumptions and definitions.
In fact the new story is rapidly becoming an old story and it may not be around much longer, even in the scientific world. For a look at the way things are going, see the recent article in the Boston Review by James A. Shapiro, professor of microbiology at the University of Chicago, with the provocative title "Scientific Alternatives to Darwinism: Is There a Role for Cellular Information Processing in Evolution?" Just to give the flavor of the article, here is a string of excerpts:
The molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint which dominated when the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis was formulated....It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability....The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with postulates held by neo-Darwinists....Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?
Shapiro takes jabs at both the Creationists and the neoDarwinists, accusing both groups of "presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise." He blames Creationists for refusing to credit the successes of science, but also comments that, when faced with new ideas, neo-Darwinists "assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science."
James Shapiro plays by the same scientific rules that Richard Lewontin does, and so he is still talking about the origin of cellular information-processing systems as a problem in "evolution." But the systems he describes are analogous to sophisticated computers, and there is no known natural process that can produce anything of that kind. Scientifically, Shapiro's program is identical to that of Michael Behe, the molecular biologist (and Roman Catholic) author of Darwin's Black Box (1997). The difference is that Shapiro tries to use language that scientific materialists can conceivably tolerate, whereas Behe dares to make the obvious inference that the evidence of biology points unambiguously to design, and hence to the reality of a Designer.
In short, Chet Raymo is urging Christians to rely for their salvation on a theory derived from materialist philosophy, rather than from scientific testing. Since scientific materialists don't hesitate to give advice to religious people, I suggest religious people should return the favor. Let's gently advise the evolutionary scientists that they need to cultivate a bit more of that objectivity they are always recommending to others. They could make a start by learning to tell the difference between what they assume and what they investigate.
-
72
CREATIONISM----F.Y.I
by nakedmvistar inin the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.
both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.
" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.
-
-
nakedmvistar
In the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize. Both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist." And yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy. As a creationist myself, I am hoping the following will help increase the understanding of the variety of positions on the creationist side of the fence.
In the United States, and perhaps in all the western culture(s), the term "creationism," or "creation," is automatically associated with Christianity and the Bible. In particular it is associated with the book of Genesis, the beginning book of the Bible, which recounts the story of creation. However this generalization ignores those of other faiths who believe just as firmly in creation as opposed to evolution from their respective points of view. The Islamic faith is a creationist faith (whether or not its proponents agree with this position). Information regarding the Islamic creation beliefs may be found here:
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~bakal/islam/nature.html
In Japan, there is the Kojiki, the ancient chronicle of creation.
The book Red Earth, White Lies, by Vine Deloria, Jr., (Fulcrum Publishing, 350 Indiana Street, Suite 350, Golden, Colorado 80401) deals with the Native American beliefs regarding creation as opposed to evolution.
The list could ago on, but it is important to realize that the term "creation" should not be relegated to Christianity exclusively. This is doing a great disservice to the beliefs of many other people in the world.
Because Genesis is also the first book of the Hebrew, or Jewish, Scriptures, there is a strong creation movement within the Jewish faith as well.
Within the Christian community, there are also different views of creation:.
1. Old universe, old earth, old life: This view is commonly held by theistic evolutionists, or those who claim Christian beliefs regarding Jesus Christ but do not accept Genesis as a straightforward account of the beginning of all things. This model accepts ancient ages based on man's knowledge of science and the laws science is aware of today. This is the compromise position, basically, between creation and evolution. When there is seeming opposition between the Bible and current science, science wins and the Bible is considered either incorrectly translated or incorrectly understood. Although God is acknowledged in this model, He is generally relegated to the position of "clockmaker" in an almost deistic fashion; He set up the universe and life and established the laws by which it has run ever since.
2. Old universe, old earth, recent life: This position is held by those who subscribe to what is often referred to as the "Gap Theory" of Genesis, wherein it is believed that the universe and the earth are quite old, but that, at one point or another, and for one reason or another, the early earth was either destroyed and re-created or simply held in abeyance until the creation of recent life. This is the official, or semi-official doctrine of some churches.
3. Old universe, young earth, recent life: This position, not as commonly held, considers the universe to be old, but earth itself, and, subsequently life, to be young. This is also the position of some parts of Christianity.
4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11.
It is the fourth model, which is the commonly considered definition of "creation" as it is discussed today. This is the model, along with -- to a lesser degree -- models 2 and 3 which is ridiculed and fought against by many in professional education, science, and communications. Within the last three models there are several "sub-groups" as well. Here I will deal with only the fourth model, known as the YEC model (young earth creation model) as the others are included or excluded by implication.
1. The Flood of Noah was responsible for the vast majority of the geologic strata we see today. This is the historic position of young earth creationists. It is the official position of the most well-known creation organizations, including the Institute of Creation Research in southern California ( http://www.icr.org/) and Answers in Genesis ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/index.asp?Area=Home), based both in Kentucky and Brisbane, Australia.
2. The Flood of Noah was only one of several catastrophic events contributing to the geologic record. There are a number of individuals in this camp who have been putting together models based on what they understand of both the Bible and the geologic record as well as other areas of science. The two most noted at this point are Barry Setterfield and Bernard Northrup. However other models are also in the works according to several communications I have received personally.
With this short introduction, then, it might be seen that to categorize "creationists" into one camp -- often the fourth camp of the Christian position -- is to be working out of ignorance of what is involved in creation. As a note, as well, it might also be necessary to clear up the term "creation science." Science is science. Lab work is lab work and field work is field work. Science, in its purest form, deals with what can be tested and worked with. It does not matter, when adding materials to a Petri dish, when excavating fossils, when operating the spacecraft, whether the person or people involved are atheistic, deistic, agnostic, New Age, or however else they might consider themselves. The technical aspects are not part of the belief systems of the men and women involved.
The adjectives "creation" and "evolution" get added to the term "science" when the matter of presuppositions and conclusions are dealt with. There is no scientist anywhere in the world who does not hold to some kind of presuppositional truth in his own life. That which he considers true will invariably color his understanding of the science he is involved with. Thus, those who believe evolution to be true will see their work in terms of evolution theory. Those who believe creation to be true will see their work in terms of creation theory. Each will form conclusions based on what they consider true in the first place. The data can be exactly the same and the conclusions can be radically different because of this. Thus, "creation science" is not a separate science itself, but a way of looking at science through the eyes of those who believe, in whatever form, that the universe and all life was the result of creation by some kind of deity.
The last point that should be brought up here is the relatively new area referred to as "Intelligent Design." Those involved with this frame of reference are part of various religions or are non-religious altogether. Intelligent Design is the logical and philosophical position, combined with science, which says that the universe and life itself give strong evidence for intelligent design. The identity of the Intelligent Designer is left to the individual -- it is not a matter for discussion within the parameters of the Intelligent Design movement itself. There are both Christians and non-Christians in this movement, as well as those who are agnostic. It is a far wider-reaching category of thought than creation as discussed above, but includes it. Some of the articles by those involved in the Intelligent Design field can be found here:
http://www.origins.org/menus/evolution.html
Understanding the different areas of creation beliefs should help all those involved in the debates to argue more precisely and intelligently. When broad generalizations are made it can cause respect to be lost and produce defensiveness. There is too much to be said in the creation/evolution controversy for ignorance to be allowed to lead the way.
-
19
"Why Should I Apologize"
by Larry inaccording to metatron's post the borg has an article entitled "why should i apologize?".
could someone scan the cover of this article (nov. 02 wt).
i don't believe the borg would publish such an apropos subject.
-
-
nakedmvistar
scanning and posting copyrighted material huh....I'm telling
-
64
Why are all angels in JW publications male?
by kenpodragon inwhy are all angels in jw publications male?
i was thinking about this today, as i notice other christian religions show angels as male and female.
do you think that this was another way of showing how males were superior to females in their teaching, or that their god "jehovah" was more favorable to the male appearance.
-
-
nakedmvistar
AMEN Yadirf!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally someone with some sense in these forums.
-
24
Inactive.....but curious....
by ScoobySnax ini was just thinking after reading some of the posts, and wanted to ask you something..... do any of you feel, and i mean right in the back of your minds, that jws might still have the true faith (truth).
i've been inactive for a few years now and don't attend meetings at the kh, apart from the memorial, and occasional convention.
please don't shout me down, its just that to me, even though i've been out for a while and my reasons for "drifting" away were very painful to me, i don't feel as the majority do here.
-
-
nakedmvistar
Hey scooby!,
I grew up around the faith all my life but never was baptised. Like you now, I went to the memorial and had a study now and then. Something in the back of my mind told me something was very wrong with them. I went to college, majored in religious studies, and yet I found ;alot of the jw's ;doctrine to be valid. I studied many other religions freely, without all that guilt imposed about by the jw's. I was not HURT by the Jw's so I don't have all this hate that I'm sure you've seen on this forum. I believe in God and I also believe that there will be a new world. No matter what you decide about your inactivity, I suggest you research and examine all sides in all of this. There are alot of hurt people in this forum who would love to see you leave the organization. I suggest you do what is right in your own heart. It's late in the "game" in this world anyway you look at it, and most if not all religious organizations are corrupt in one way or another. We don't really no what went on with all these people who were d'fd. everybody seems to be innocent of any wrong doing in this forum.