Posts by Abaddon

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

Abaddon

"If carrying one of all animals planet-wide (excluding water creatures like whales), there would have been only a few extremely large, and these likely slept through the 40 days of darkness, thus requiring little food for them and causing them to produce less waste than normal."

Wow! Hard science. "One of all" animals I'll ignore, as it's obviously a mistake. "Only a few extremely large"? Well now, I can think of dozens of land animals over half a tonne in weight, and at least a half dozen over a tonne, and that's according to 'kinds'. And do we include fun things like the dinotherium, or that HUGE sixteen tonne South American beastie? I guess we don't include those, as they obviously missed the boat. But "these likely slept through the 40 days of darkness, thus requiring little food for them and causing them to produce less waste than normal" is just so suppositional as to be genuinely funny. Did Noah play them pretty music to drown out the torrents of water hammering on the roof? You know, like, is it Perseus playing the lyre to Cereberus, or, the harp that puts Fluffy to sleep in Harry Potter?

Basically, even IF the geological evidence points towards a suitably timed meteorite impact, it also points towards a LOCAL flood, which is the best anyone can do in finding evidence of a GLOBAL flood, like it says in the Bible. You look for evidence of a GLOBAL flood, you find evidence of a LOCAL flood. And this is meant to underline the accuracy of the Bible? That is reports weather partially accurately. Bow down to the weather man, man!

All this does is underline, yet again, that the Bible is not accurate or literal. Even if the events in the Bible have some historical foundation, they do not have the accuracy that one would reasonably expect from 'inspiration', and thus the Bible is just another book.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

12

It takes a real Witness to bitch slap AlanF....

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

...into submission.. here's one now, posting in the psuedoscience forum on wol:.

i thought i would post a review of a certain book i know of called "solving the mystery of the biblical flood" which is just now available from some of the on line book sellers.

it is basically a geology book that proves the earth has had a recent earth wide flood as described in the bible.

Abaddon

"... the key part of the book where the author presents photographs of finding microscopic marine diatoms in Midwestern soil samples"

Hold the press! It rains in the Midwest!

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

22

Marijuana: Big Business(MSNBS news alert)

by sf in

jw
friends

< http://www.msnbc.com/news/673623.asp?0na=x2112564-.

a portion, as you scroll down the page:.

big business of marijuana.

Abaddon

"I mean you have to assume that a good percentage of users will becaome addicts and quite a few won't function properly and become non-productive citizens."

This arguement is used as a reason to not legalise drugs.

However, it falls down; the fact that drugs are illegal does NOTHING to stop people accessing drugs. We will always have people who will abuse recreational substances, be it alcohol or whatever. Did alcoholism go down during Prohibition? I think not.

All it means is that over a million people in the USA are in jail for non-violent drug related crime. All it means is that criminal gangs fight over the lucrative illegal trade. All it means is that police time is spent enforcing laws that restrict what you do with the inside of your head, rather than enforcing crimes with a victim. All it means is that multi-million dollar crime empires are established to supply these drugs.

I live in Holland. Less young people use cannabis regulary than in England, although here it is decriminalised, and in England it is still an illegal drug.

Making drugs illegal causes more damage to soceity than creating a framework for their lawful supply and use.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

RWC;

As for proof of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, there are hundreds of proven prophecies. Just as an example, Isaiah and others gave multiple prophecies about Jesus from where he would be born to how he would die which came true. These were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

Suppose the Gospels were just written to make it sound like someone had fufilled all those prophecies, so that this person was seen as the Messiah? There is no proof that this is not the case.

The fact that Jesus was crucified is without question and proven outside of the bible.

I believe there are four contemporary references to Jesus outside the Bible (and the Gospels are not contemporary to Jesus, being written sometime after), and that all four of these are classified as fraudulent or doubtful by many theologans, let alone athiests.

As for the idea that God is a partial God and we know him only by the luck of our birth, that is also a false premise based upon a misunderstanding of the God of the Bible. God as described in the Bible says that all who seek him will find him. It also says that there is evidence of him all around for those who want to seek him to know that he exists. It also says that God is a just God and that children who do not reach the age of accountablity will not be persecuted. For this God as portrayed in the Bible, a child who is born in India and dies before he is old enough to seek God on his own, he will not be persecuted. If he does and chooses to not seek Him, than that is his own doing. this happens in all cultures because people all over the world are converted to Christianity.

In the, oh, three hundred years Missionaries have been active in India, Christians remain in a massively small minority. This either means that people are dying unaware of god's true word due to ineffective dissemination of God's word (which would mean it wasn't fair), or because they were somehow intrinsically less inclined to follow the true god (which implies some cultures or races are more inclined towards god, which is illogical).

As for the Book of Mormon it is fundamentally different from the Bible. It was written by one man who also said that the only evidence he had to support it was destroyed so it could not verified. The history of the devolpment of the cannoized Bible we have today is vastly different.

There is as much PROOF that the Book of Mormon is god's inspired word as for the Bible. What about the Hindu holy scriptures? WHat proof is there that these are not god's true word, and the Bible is not? What about the books as old as the Bible that were excluded from the Bible by the Roman Catholic CHurch?

Your comments regarding the development of scientific theory ignore the fact that religious theory is as imperfect as scientific theory and lacks any possibility of final closure, whereas over time many scientific theories achieve closure.

Also, just becasue one Chemist believes in god does not mean that there is scientific proof of god. He's entitled to his opinion, and would likely agree that there is no proof of god, even though he believes that you can get closer to god.

As I said RWC, we are going in circles here. You're not going to change your mind, and I have seen no evidence presented by you that would change my mind.

Regards

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

RCW; I also think we're obviously entering a loop in the conversation. At the end of the day, I don't believe in god because there is enough evidence to support man arrising via natural processes. That's my opinion, you don't agree, which is fine.

I do agree there is a degree of uncertainty; even given my belief in life arrising via natural processes, it is possible that this was initiated and guided by an entity.

But there is no evidence.

Unless such an entity is unconcerned in any practcal way with mankind, and is just something 'other', a creative force, without what we would think of as a personality, there would logically be evidence.

God cannot be partial. He could make his will known and his existence manifest. Some claim he has done this through the Bible. Some through the Book of Mormon. Other's through the Guru Ganesh (sp?), or the Bhaggadvavita (sp?). But, although some of these ways are more inclusive than others, unless the way is VERY broad, many people will not come to the ONE WAY, due to confusion that this god has allowed to develop.

Say the Bible is true. Say you have the right interpretation of the Bible. What happens to illerate rural Hindu in Bangladesh? For you to have a better chance than they through chance of birth indicates partiallity.

So, if there is a god, he is essentially unknowable, and all religious books are failed attempts to know him that may give glimpses. Or god is partial. Or there is no god.

From the depths of me I cannot accept that god could be partial, and is planting an obscure message, known clearly to few, so that it is, for want of a better word, a game to see if we get the right answer, a game that is easier if you are born as person a in place be than if you are born as person a in place c. It just seems silly. If there is a god, it's not unfair. And if it is, I'll have nowt to do w'it.

If god is a more diffuse unknowable thing with no 'plan' for us, there is little functional difference between that and there being no god.

Regards

Pom; I'm with you. Rebellion in heaven. So, I suppose God could zap the rebels, but that would leave the question implicit in the rebellion unanswered. Or god could tell the devil to go it's way, and divide creation. Hmmm... don't think either side would want that, it's an all-or-nothing thing. Or god could allow the question to be resolved in a wonderful way?

Regards

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

6

When will a firebrand lead the Organization?

by refiners fire in

jw
friends

its apparent that a number of people on this site have read eric hoffers "true believer" .did anyone find hoffers "3 monarchs" theory as spooky as i did?

( pages 130 thru 160 of the book).

hoffer says that a movement is founded by a "man of words".this man is a writer,highly regarded as such and is often a charismatic person.he is an intellectual who speaks out about the corruption of the established order.. sounds like pastor russell to me.. after this founder, the movement is taken over by a fanatic, (second ruler ).here is hoffers description of this man, on page 153:.

Abaddon

Nice post. I'm not familiar with the author you mention, but it seems right on the money... I'd be interested if it fitted other cults too; the Moonies I suppose are still at stage 1, the Scientologists had a definate phase 1, but I don't know their organisational history after that, likewise the Mormons.

I personally feel that a schism will come, and it will be lead by a charasmatic person. There will quite possibly be a reformed JW's that dispenses with the Organisational structure, and that personal conscience will be held hugher than a set of rules. It would also involve a distancing from any literalistic interpretation of the Bible.

This is bound to happen at somepoint, as all religions move further away from a literal path according to a book as they become a more deeply embedded cultural entity. Look at the Roman Catholics. Millions of people say they are Roman Catholic, and contravene Church law, and rarely attend services.

There is bound to be a 'rump' of traditionalists, but it would likely fade away to an ineffective stub as inborns would almost all leave, and the beliver base would atropht over time.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

32

What do you think would happen if aliens landed?

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

let's paint a little picture.. it's spring 2002. at 1200h gmt a radio and tv announcement is broadcast on almost all conventional frequencies, in appropriate formats according to the medium and the area.. it's from a bunch of pale violet humaniods who have come "in peace for all qw'z'x>kind".

they say they want to meet up with the un in full cnongress.. disbelief rapidly turns to amasement when cnn and other news-services provide footage of a large alien vessel descending into the river near the un.

large in this case means 5km long... and wisely, none of the sac jets sent to have a look pull a will smith or anything stupid, although one gets nudgeed gently away by an invisable beam of some sort when it gets too close.. let's say it becomes apparent the aliens are utter benign, happy to hand out technological aid, scientific knowledge, and hope to welcome the people of earth to your typical peaceful federation of planets (about 5,00 different species all told).. how do you think people would react?

Abaddon

ianao; nice one!!!

seven006; my basic premise is; if they have FTL technology, they could be here already, and we'd only know if they wanted us to, so I agree. My Treky terminology is just for convenience, and based upon a premise that a star-faring race would of had to control their aggresive instincts or of perished before breaking away from their cradle. This is complete suppostion. If they're agressive, we are in for it.

JanH; well, I think we could, and they'd hopefully be smarter and do the running. We could speak to dolphins or chimps tomorrow if we were clever enough to speak to their language (not that they'd be great conversationalists), but we have to try to make them learn one of our devising, which is obviously tit-over-ass.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

The most reasonable inference from the evidence is that there had to be an intelligent designer to get this started

Please tell me you don't think that is a scientific statement!!?? We can't supply a closed definative explaination (just like you), so this means, as it's 'all so wonderful', that there must be an intelligent designer? The arguement from incredulity is not a sound one for me. It might be for you.

But the reasoning is along the lines of a five year-old, who has suspicions that Santa doesn't exist, but decides he must exist as there is so much evidence that it's impossible to understand any explaination for Christmas, as it's 'all so wonderful'.

I have to say I intensely dislike the fact in two succesive posts you have attacked the moral integrity of the entire scientifc community, without giving any foundation for this;

What has been said is that it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist and an atheist

Does that make your arguement stronger? I think not. You've already had to partially retract one statement. Now you imply by quotation that either scientists base their beliefs on faith (the assured expectation of things not yet perceived), or are dishonest. Shame on you. SOME scientific beliefs are very theoretical, and possibly can be termed 'faith'. The vast majority is as provable as you are.

As for saying;

I understand your explanation about the Roman Catholic church. I happen to belong there. But you missed the point. Scientist first told us that the world was flat.

... sorry, it is you who missed the point.

It was a religious person who first said the world was flat; religious people have been 'round' (haha) far longer than scientists! In fact, religious people used to be the ad-hoc scientists of the ancient world, which was a bitch when you found your religious beliefs contradicited your own common sense, and got burnt for the trouble.

At some point, a religious person was scared by lightning, and wondered what lightning was. The 'most obvious explaination' was a bloke in the sky. This is not science.

At some point some religous person or the other wrote in one of a number of creation myths or holy books that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, as it was the 'most obvious explaination'. This is not science.

Then some scientist came along and proved what lightning was.

At some point, a brave scientist avoided being burnt as he could PROVE the Earth rotated round the sun, and wasn't going to let a priest make him lie (well, he did lie eventually, but I'd lie about the Universe's structure to avoid burning, and the Greek scientific knowledge was known by religious people and ignored as it didn't fit their religion).

At some point, it seemed obvious that, as men make things, men must be made, as it was the 'most obvious explaination'. That's why it says it happened that way in all the religious books. This is not science. Then a scientist came along and proved that things were not made as a man makes a pot.

Now, we don't have cinefilm of the first DNA strand. You don't have video of god. Stop trying to make it sound like we are making silly assumptions, you make them yourself by doing so. Did you read any of the URL's I posted? I think you would find it interestesting. Look at what the Pope say about evolution http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Basically, it's accepted, apart from the special nature of man.

Look at history. Religious beliefs have, at every turn, been defeated by scientific beliefs. There is no definative theory of god. You'd think one would of come up by now... the lack of definativeness is a huge problem for any theist claiming god 'cares' or is 'personified' in any way, as these claims would logically result in god making its way DEFINATIVELY manifest, which it is NOT.

Evolution's been a part of science, what, 150 years? We're doing far better in explaining our origins that way than religion has ever done.

Oh, and sorry, I think my concept of god (as it would be if it were) is more loving than yours. God logically cannot be known through a literal interpretation of the Bible, so stop trying to defend the indefensable; you don't need to, your belief in the Bible is not equivalent to your belief in God, and in fact are more logical when treated in this fashion.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

32

What do you think would happen if aliens landed?

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

let's paint a little picture.. it's spring 2002. at 1200h gmt a radio and tv announcement is broadcast on almost all conventional frequencies, in appropriate formats according to the medium and the area.. it's from a bunch of pale violet humaniods who have come "in peace for all qw'z'x>kind".

they say they want to meet up with the un in full cnongress.. disbelief rapidly turns to amasement when cnn and other news-services provide footage of a large alien vessel descending into the river near the un.

large in this case means 5km long... and wisely, none of the sac jets sent to have a look pull a will smith or anything stupid, although one gets nudgeed gently away by an invisable beam of some sort when it gets too close.. let's say it becomes apparent the aliens are utter benign, happy to hand out technological aid, scientific knowledge, and hope to welcome the people of earth to your typical peaceful federation of planets (about 5,00 different species all told).. how do you think people would react?

Abaddon

Oh, I do realise the unlikelihood! Unless FTL transport is possible, it's unlikely ever to happen.

I was just wanting as an example something that could not be disputed, as in a 5km long starship dropping in on the UN, as a jump-of point for how deep cognotive dissonance can go!

I don't think, if they came, they'd hand out weapons. In fact, I think any alien race that contacted us before we had socailly evolved another few centuries if that.

I imagine there being more unrest in the religious communties that would find it hard to incorporate aliens into their worldview. Many traditional Christians and Muslims would be traumatised. Buddists and Hindus would find it far easier to accept; no clash. I do think there would be a lot of doctrinal changes though, with more explict understanding of the fact that god can't be proved, but that this doesn't matter provided you don't take things too literally and realise that in the absence of a single way, it must be the trying that is important.

I suppose if SETI ever did find some thing, then there would be a great schism. The real fundies (of all religious ways) would just not believe it, ever, not even in, say, 2134 when full (slow, 66 ly each way) two way communication is established and a cultural and technological exchange programe starts. It would be weird if it were in the immediate neigbourhood though... it would be the biggest news story of all time, there would be a massive conflab about how to reply, and eventually someone would, even if it were unofficial, and then there would be two life-times wait for a reply, during which it would be a scientific curiosity and not much else.

I think it's one of those things, like asteroid impacts, that have a probability of 1 over time, but in an individual lifetime is so astonishingly unlikely as to have a probability of zero.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

Pom, you know my arguement regarding the illogicity of obscurity. What you are arguing is very obscure. I don't conceive a caring god would make his message that obscure. That's not neccesarily an arguement against exlusivity, but is an arguement against elitism and, for want of a better word, theological disenfranchisement of those not exposed to the Bible.

Having said that, I'm more than happy to listen to further details of your understanding, but I might not get back to you before Monday, as it's 3.30pm where I am and I'm probably not going to be online this weekend.

So, carry on by all means, I want a complete picture, oh, and have a good weekend...

(see, I can be nice sometimes)

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...