Posts by Abaddon

43

Welcome to the world of 'peaceful' Islam

by Shining One in

.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel .

rex

Abaddon

gumby

Jesus Christ Rex......this statement has got to be the worst out of your mouth.

Yeah gumbster, I can see it, you can see it, I think a lot can... but Rex doesn't or perhaps won't/can't see it. Sad, eh? A big fat double standard; he whacks the Qu'ran for being violent and beastly but sticks his head in a bucket and ignores the Bible can be just as violent and beastly.

He says what he likes about the founder of other faiths, and then whines when people treat the founder of his faith the same way. Not that he has a double standard or anything...

nate

The problem isn't so much with the Quaran (though it is violent and problematic),

Like the Bible

but with the Hadith.

Just as various churches doctrines have been a problem...

The Hadith is regarded as just as sacred as the Quaran,

Just like the pronouncements of various Christian denominations

and it commands Jihad against all 'infidels' and so many anti-social activities I'm too lazy to type them all.

Yeah, well, the Crusades, the conquest of South America... the accusations can neatly and accurately be shown to apply to both

When I was a minister in the Detroit area I became acquainted with a lot of Muslims in Dearborn, which is just outside Detroit. Educated modern people for the most part, the fire of Jihad still ran hot in their veins.

Do you mean Muslims as in 'born and bred' or Muslims as in 'Golly Gee, Islam seems to take my racial denomination more seriously than Christianity so I think it is the true faith' Muslims? Having grown up in a true multi-cultural society (and a black American who has become a Muslim is definately not suddenly from a different culture, anymore than a white American who becomes Muslim is definately not suddenly from a different culture), my experience of Muslims is vastly different.

It is not a peaceful lovey-dovey religion, except for the possible exception of the Sufi.

Yeah, well there's fluffy Christians as well...

Rex

here is no 'double standard' in my beliefs.

Of course not darling...

I simply try to judge each action/result by the variables that are involved.

Yeah, if you say so...

You cannot see that the teachings that are espoused by the leaders of the religions are the main influence over the culture. You have that backwards.

Which is why cultures express religion differently over time, sometimes in total contrast to what is espoused by the leaders of the religion... which is a/ true and b/ proves you wrong, even if you 'ostrich' the issue...

Can the culture affect the religion as well? Of course it can, but only when the secular teachings overwhelm the religious due to how well each is promoted.

Ah, now here you hit the nail on the head as regards why Christianity has changed so much in the past two hundred years... education and culture reached a point where supersticious nonsence was disregarded and Christianity was redefined... it must suck each time you try to prove your point you prove mine...

Islam has ruled the cultures of the Islamic countries for hundreds of years. If the European crusaders had not turned back Islam in France, then driven them from Spain we would have much more Islamic influence and it would be just as brutal as it is now.

No way of knowing. The only thing that stops Christianity being the brutal, oppresive, misogynistic religion it once was is two hundred years plus of steady erosion by secularism and science. As Islam is subjected to the same influences it will change too. If Islam had conquered Europe maybe the secularisation that changed the practise of Christianity would have similarly affected Islam already?

They conquer and subjugate:

Oh yes!! You are so right about those Christians... oh, hang on a minute... you mean Muslims and are *sigh* once again ignoring all the conquering and subjecting Christians have done. Not that you're biased in anyway, LOL

they have always done so and will keep doing so until we can influence and assist the people into deposing their captors. This has begun in the middle east with the advent of some elected governments.

Oh, you mean secularism. You're agreeing with me again!!!

People are already seeing that it is possible to have a voice in their own countries. Did you see how many voted in Iraq despite the threats of death to any and all?
Don't compare the apples and oranges of Ireland

No of course not. No way we could expose your big fat double standard for what it is *snore*

with the warfare we see in the middle east. Its just not the same nor, is it of the same degree.

Oh, I am sure if the American Christians who funded the Irish Christian terrorists had supplied more money even more men, women and children would have died... which again, you ignore... and you also ignore if you just swapped the situation you would have Christian suicide bombers in Palestine and decades of ineffectual waffling by an Islam dominated Western world.

As long as you libs make excuses for terrorists and lump Christianity in with a cults that coerce people into obedience and 'conversion'

Don't be silly. For the majority of its history Christianity HAS "coerce[d] people into obedience and 'conversion'". As long as you Conservative bigots (nasty word but check the dictionary, it is a definiton not an insult) ignore reality "you are 'cutting your own throats'."

You had better believe that wherever Islam takes hold and is in the majority that conformity is not far away.

Lordy, change the Islam for Zionism and you'd sound just like an anti-Semite...

You've no such threat from the Christian right.

No, only the imposition of the standards of bronze-age goatherds on people who don't believe in a supernatural carpenter... curtailment of reproductive rights (I notice you've not taken up the challange I issued you to debate if abortion is specifically outlawed in the Bible, probably because you realise it ISN'T), restrictions on who may love whom and how even if they harm no one else by doing so, the impostion of a science curriculum based upon fairy stories... nothing to fear from the Christian right what-so-ever...

If the libs would have left marriage alone

Silly man. Most of those 'liberals' WERE Christian, it's just you consider YOUR definiton of Chritianity better than anyone elses despite the fact you cannot demonstrate it is better (as in more accurate).

and supported the war effort (instead of turning traitor for political gain), the hated George W might not have gotten re-elected. Now that is not a comfortable thought to me! LOL

What, the war bulit on lies? Do YOU, a Christian, support an administration that has been proven to have lied to the Ameerican public so as to sway public opinion in favour of war???

The most conservative, evangelical church in America, the Southern Baptists, have a strong belief in keeping religion out of government and vice versa.

Oh, they did. Try updating your version of reality. Before Reagan got in many DIDN'T vote. Look at the truely unholy alliance conservative Christians have since formed with neo-cons...

They know from church history just how power corrupts and from the example of the Holy Roman empire we see the results.

Which is why so many vote Republican?

The real changes in that began to develop when the printing presses started turning out Bibles for all to read.

Yup... and began to see it wasn't god's word!

This was spurred on by tranlators who often went to their deaths later. When people read the Bible and understand it as a complete revelation they rebel against those who have misled them. This is much like what is happening to the JWs with the internet!

Oh, I think that most religions will have a lot of problems due to the freedom and ease of access to contrary views on the internet...

The internet is a threat to all of the despots and thugs, including the

conservatives

who are trying to make everyone conform to their

conservative

(and please don;t use the word 'socialist' again until you can answer what are the differences between the socialism of the former Soviet block and that of most European countries... what, you DON'T know the difference?.. figures... )

ideas through 'political correctness'.

What have you got to fear from human rights and mutual respect...?

Forums like this would not exist in that world.

Christian

law would dominate and the first ones to go will be the secularists.
Your notions are a lot more theatening to Islam than they will ever be to my faith.

Your faith so far has been superbly demonstrated by YOU to not be capable of defending itself... AGAIN...

.... not that this comment applies to Christians willing to see god as he might be, rather than as they'd like him to be...

36

I can't read the WT and AWAKE anymore

by Jez in

hundreds of supplementary publications written by unnamed authors that can hide behind the watchtower and bible tract society and say anything without referencing it.

lately, i have been thinking that this is one of the reasons that the society does not encourage higher education.

try handing in an essay without your name on it, try not referencing your essay, try having no works cited, try to have only 1 works cited, try quoting out of context, try spewing statistics or numbers or trends in your essay with no reference or date, add ellipsis that only alert your instructor to the potential of hidden information, or try presenting as support for your thesis a third party quote.

Abaddon

I totally agree with what many have said.

They are so frikin' purile... no substance... an easily dismantlable manipulative technique... fallacious argumentation... arghhh... I can't believe I didn't notice until I got myself an education.

As has been said, it's almost impossible to even flick through them without your teeth being put on edge.

There IS a compulsion to flick through the ones my mum always palms me when I leave (after a visit)... but my never-a-JW fiancé loathes them and tends to destroy them before I succumb to something that will just vex me.

Bless...

54

Skirting the issue

by Virgogirl in

what argument is put forth that women must only wear dresses or skirts to the meetings or in service and are not permitted to wear slacks?

where does it say it's wrong for sisters to wear pants, and how are they convincing women in 2005 to buy into this?

i remember many bitterly cold chicago mornings with frozen legs running to doors and back to the warm car as quickly as possible, wearing a skirt which was ridiculous and inappropriate to the weather conditions.

Abaddon

peaches

Oh, they twist away.

Of course, in THOSE days men didn't wear trousers. Hell, the Roman's (obviously a fhousand years later) thought wearing trousers was effeminate!!

So the Dubbies obviously interpret this as 'wear culturally appropriate clothes for your gender'.

Of course, being stuck in a 1950's cultural time wharp where someone with a beard is a beatnik, and women didn't wear trousers, they have failed to notice that standards have changed and beards and women in trousers don't mean what they used to mean.

In today's society trousers are culturally appropriate.for women.

It's just typical of the Pharasee-like attitude of adding laws to burder those they are meant to guide.

43

Welcome to the world of 'peaceful' Islam

by Shining One in

.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel .

rex

Abaddon

Rex

Why to go at missing the point.
1/ No matter WHAT the texts of the Christian faith and Islamic faith say, the followers of BOTH religions have behaved in disgraceful, inhuman fashions at various points.
Is this true or false?
**True, but with a caveat: all followers includes those who have no idea that their faith teaches**

Agreed. That would include Muslims "brain-washed" by Immanas who preach a version of Islam repudiated by the majority of Muslims. That would include American Christians sending money to support Christian terrorists in Northern Ireland.

2/ In 1000AD Islam made Christendom look backward and brutal.
Is this true or false?
**false dilemma, this does not have a true or false answer, there are too many variables**

Oh BE HONEST! In the Christian world Jews had a very uncertain existence, as did Muslims. Death, dispossesion, torture and forced conversion were all common.

In the Muslim world Jewish and Christian residents were accepted as people of the book, with rights albeit less than those of Muslims.

In the Christian world superstition ruled over all, whereas the Islamic world kept the brilliance of the Greeks and Romans alive and even extended upon it, as well as developing concepts that arose in the Indian sub-continent.

3/ Now "Christendom" makes parts of Islam look backward and brutal.
Is this true or false?
**Obviously true**

And you say you are not a bigot???!!! Ha! You are so reluctant to criticise co-religionists in the past (ya know, inquisitors, witch burners, lovely bunch of people) you prevaricate and dissemble; "too many variables". If you used the same standards to answer this and the previous question your answer would be the same to both.

Anyway, thus far we are mostly in agreement, and I feel you prevarication on 2/ compared to your eager condemnation in 3/ is pretty transparent to most people.

4/ Yet 200 years ago Christians and the various religions they were members of typically would have been in favour of things we would find totally unacceptable given concepts like human rights.
Is this true or false?
**Alleged (claimed) followers of Christ would, just as there were those who would not.**

Again, evasive and illuminatingly so. You repudiate some people as Christians, or as behaving as Christians should. Just like the majority of the billions of Muslims on this planet repudiate some people as Muslims or as behaving as Muslims should. If you are not a bigot why do you give yourself the right to exclude some claimed Christians, but obviously do not give Muslims the right to exclude some who claims to be a Muslim?

Thus far mostly in agreement apart from the questions where you apply a clear double standard.

5/ You can claim the content is different, go ahead. But can't support with evidence any claim the behviour of the two religions is significantly different if one views the history of each religion over the past 1,000 years.
**Content is different: there are an infinestimal amount of Christians that are terrorists.

Just like there are an infinestesimal amount of Muslims who are terrorists. But I already said you can claim content is different, it's not the point.

Terrorism is often an institution of a culture that is warped by the teachings of caravan robber who revenged himself of the Jews and Christians that did not accept his assertion that he was a prophet. He told a lie so big that he made Hitler look like a 'piker'.

Bigot. I really don't have anything else to say to your hate of an entire religious group, apart from the fact it's amusing you mention Hitler whilst spounding like an anti-semite. Very very sad, but amusing. You also don't answer the actual question; is the behaviour of the two religions significantly different if one views the history of each religion over the past 1,000 years. Now, did you not answer the question cause you got stuck into being bigotted? Or because saying "Yes" (the answer supported by facts) is too traumatic for you?

**You obviously accept my point. My focus is on the immediate followers of Christ who were ‘closest to the vine’ and being martyred for upwards of four centuries by the most brutal empire to have come along.

Accept your point? No, I don't, and anyone reading this would be surprised at your suggestion. You are so eager to attack Islam and 'the immediate followers of Mohammed' it makes you foolish enough to forget Jesus was betrayed by Judas. Talk about self-deception.

This puts you in an embaressing situation. You claim the Bible is, shall we say, a less brutal biook than the Qu'ran?

**I claimed the New Testament is. The Old Testament in content also shows the wrath of God often being carried out by world powers. The Quran is a book that mistranslates the Old Testament and applies Arabian Kingdom law to a cultish religion. It is a large version of the WBTS.**

So you don't accept the OT as god's word? Or you merely find it too difficult to reconsile the OT god with the NT god and therefore have to apply a double standard, whereby you criticise the Qu'ran for content but use special pleading to justify equally objectionable parts of the Bible's content.

Yet despite this it's followers have been just as brutal as the followers of the Qu'ran!
**The followers may or may not have been Christians and we might judge this by their actions though we do not know their hearts. With the Roman Apostacy there was practically NO way for a Christian to know he was being misled.**

Ah.... so it is okay for Christians to do bad things because they are mislead by Satin the Dubble, but if Muslims do bad things and are mislead again you apply a different set of rules? How biased is that!!!???

What does that say about the average Christian and Muslim over the past thousand years? It seems, according to what you say, that Christians have frequently been less peaceable than their text would allow, and the average Muslim has been more peaceful than their source text would ask for, if your claims about the relative content are accepted as true.
**We fall upon the same general assumption that is an erroneous one at that. People are judged by their actions according to what THEY SAY they believe.

People are judged as being hypocrites due to the contrast of action with belief, or when they use a double standard to reach a conclusion. People's 'goodness' is judged by their ACTIONS.

We have an inherent nature and inclination to sin and guess what? Believers are afforded the full attention of the Evil One because those who are not are already perishing (until a Christian is led to witness to them and the person is saved.). The average Muslim is peaceful because he is not in a position to win by force. As long as he is opposed by a force that keeps him in check he is held to account by fear of the sword. Look at the deafening silence from the world's Islamic leaders when terrorism strikes, then look at the Hitlerian goals of the Arabs!

You are off your bloody rocker! You ASSUME (if I can make out that jumbled sentence) that Christians have a hard job of it as they are persecuted by Satan. I suppose Satan kept all the Christians in Germany quiet whilst train load after train load after train load of Jews arttled through the night to their deaths? AGAIN, a massive double standard. "Brain-washed" citizens of a totalitarian and brutal society keep silent as an attrocity is carried out. If they are Christian you exlcude the behaviour from consideration or excuse it. If a Muslim does it you condemn them.

Shock news; Muslims are frequently nicer than their beliefs require them to be but Christians often fall short of the basic requirements of their faith!
**Ah, there you go spouting an assertion that may or may not be true. Christians are held to a higher standard. You still do not account for the fact that a Christian generally behaves like a Christ-follower and not as one who does not know Christ!**

You say "a Christian generally behaves like a Christ-follower and not as one who does not know Christ", I say "there you go spouting an assertion that may or may not be true.". See your double standard yet?

It's the same Bible, the one you describe as the 'text of Christianity'. The same God I assume? Did he go on an anger management course, or what?
**Not knowing theology, I assume you do not know of ‘dispensationalism’ or ‘progressive revelation?**

Knowing ethics, hell, just me being a human being I find bullshit pushed around to try and justify god commanding wholesale slaughter of everyone apart from girls of about 14 and downwards (who instead got to be raped by the men who slaughtered their parents) really, really objectionable.

If you will criticise what you see as offensive/immoral content in the Qu'ran, I think you'd best accept criticism from others about offensive/immoral content in the Bible.
**God does not need me to apologize for Him, I offer you only a reasonable explanation as ‘apologia’.

I agree god should not need anyone to aplogise for him. The very fact one has to be an apologist is due to the lack of absolute determinability on many questions of your (or any) faith.

You see the lack of determinability, and think "I must enter into apologetics as I ASSUME I am right and need to show I am even though I cannot do so in an absolute fashion".

Others see the lack determinability and think "well, how likely is that the claims of the 'true' religion are not easily demonstrable if it IS the 'true' religion"? If the claims are not demonstrable, isn't that more likely to mean they are just empty claims, and no amount of 'clever' apologetics is going to chnage that?

You fail to see that the Jews do not practice the Old Testament standards. Even they recognize that the era has passed. God's wrath is a terrible thing, it is also His right and nowhere does the Lord of Glory, the risen one, call us to convert others by force. He alone has province over judgement.**

Despite this Christianity has frequently been pushed on others by force. Which, again, underlines my whole POINT.

Read the history of the two religions in the immediate times after the death of the spiritual leaders in question.
And? For Christ's sake man; 6/ Jesus was betrayed by one of the Apostles!
Is this true or false?
**First of all, do not slander the name of Jesus. You don't need to stoop to that! Your question may be true, in fulfillment of scripture. Now compare that to the bloodbath of the caravan robber’s cohorts. You cannot be this ignorant of history, can you now? Comparison denotes the stark contrast between cultish behavior and honest persuasion.**

You are insanely hypocritical; you slander another religion's founder in a way an adherent would find offensive yet expect special treatment for your religion. Double standards, AGAIN.

**NO, my ENTIRE POINT IS PROVED as I have refuted you in the above answers!**

No, you either agree with me or display double standards or hypocracy in answering the questions when you don't want to agree with me, as I have illusrated above.

That’s enough for now. I need to get off the ‘merry go round’ for awhile but its been fun.

Ya sure? Sure that there aren't a few neurons back there going "hang on a minute... WHY do I have to have such a massive double standard to defend my beliefs?"

Take care Rex

74

fandabbidozey

by netclocker in

i am looking for help regarding some unsolved prophecies, regarding the king of the north and the eviction from heaven of satan, the woman, and three and a half years, or 42 months, or a time times and half a time.

i have tried various forums over the past 4 years but only seem to get ridiculed or deleted.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66606/1.ashx this site here locked me up.

Abaddon

netclocker

abaddon mate how are you this fine morning. fandabbidozey comes from the crankies and its brittish tv, not english, and its a scottish word, your not one of them that goes about saying england won the war are you.

Nah, it's just last time I looked the British Broadcasting Corporation's Television Centre was in London, which although the capital of Britain is actually in England. The stuff the BBC do in Scotland is most definately Scotish, so the stuff the do in England is... ?

Just having fun; there are two statues in the middle of the Dutch city I live in, in memory of the liberators of the area in WWII. They're both dedicated to Highland Regiments... the elderly Dutch people in the area still remmeber who freed them from the Germans, and it wasn't the English...

random splicing now that would be like the witnesses do with the john class and the peter class. were things are brought together to look like somthing else. i have a problem with that, didnt somone tell you that joseph and david both prefigured jesus, so how can that be random splicing. theres nothing random about it, its common knowledge. and its common knowledge that they were all 30 except adam, so were does the splicing come into it, i havnt spliced anything i stated facts apart from adam being 30, becaucse the rest is in the bible.

By random splicing I mean you are assigning significance to certain repeated numbers or claiming certain numbers would repeat without distinct evidence for this. It's a form of the law of truly large numbers A good example is to be seen here; http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html Scroll down and see the mystical bollocks Uri Geller comes up with about the number 11. Read the article. Grok it. Stop it. It just makes you look... a little... you know... for example...go here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Day_Theory See what bollocks people come up with?

im certainly not deluded or paranoid,

errr... would you know if you were?

and i dont think the world is out to get me,

Shows how much you know...

as for the caps lock what can i say, NOT THE END,

VERY DULL

since i first posted this about four years ago ive had it from all sides, but the bit you miss is that other people can see it.

On this basis Jehovah's Witnesses have a good argument, as they can make 'other people see it' too.

and after my post was up for a few weeks, someone adds the bit about jewish law stating that a man is under his father till he is 30, so he saw it, because i didnt know that, but i do now,

But you ignore; 1/ Adam was never 30, not in a meaningful fashion 2/ He was not a Jew. (Just making sure you don;t miss the point... ) Thus your whole hypothesis about 30 etc. is blown out of the water. Does this change a thing? Nope. You carry on like a little Duracell Bunny. If someone ignores their theory had crashed and burned, but acts like it hasn't, then, well, you're ignoring reality mate. Like I say, would you know if you were deluded? Imagine a friend pointed out how a number of people born on the same day (but different years) had died the same way... and how this "MEANT" something. You look at the evidence, and find that we don't know the date of birth of one of them. Traditionally he was said to be a Sagitarian, and your friend is assuming he was born on the 9th December, just because. But then you note the guys being discussed was from Fiji, where they don't have the same Zodiac or even anything remotely like it. If your friend kept on insisting, despite the gaping hole in his theory, that 'it meant something', would you think he had a sound theory? If he kept on about it despite the fact he knew it had massive holes in it, would you think he was 'all present and correct', or in danger of being 'one sandwich short of a picnic'?

but if lots people started posting positve remarks about it tommorow would you start to change your mind.

No, because it fails as a hypothesis at the first fence. It's like the chap who insisted train travel wasn't possible as people would suffocate from the "air pressure" if they went faster than 30 miles and hour (this is true)... great hypotheisis, but people had ALREADY resisted "air pressure" equivalent to moving at 30 miles and hour... WHEN IT WAS WINDY. The hypothesis is wrong and not worthy of any further consideration. And also, so what what people think of something? People thinking something is a good idea or not has NOTHING to do with whether it is real. Hell, a certain percentage of people who read the Da Vinchi Code think it's a great hypothesis. The fact the Holy Grail/Sange Royal theory falls over due to a mistranslation that was perpetuated means many people can think it is a great idea, and say positive things... but it would still be WRONG. The truth of a theory is not determined by a clap-ometer. Get real!

have you ever actually read a bible.

Yes. Have you? Tell me, what's the meaning of Number 31: 15-18? Anything noteworthy or significant about that?

why do you believe that the pyramids were built 500 years before the flood, is it somthing your happy with or just somthing you picked up on the discovery channel.

My, that's arrogant. What make YOU sure YOU know? You read a Dubbie book? Or the Bible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza Believed by mainstream egyptologists including Mark Lehner and Dr. Zahi Hawass to have been constructed in approximately 20 years, the most widely accepted estimate for its date of completion is c. 2580 BC .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_ark
According to Archbishop Ussher's calculations the flood took place around 2348 BC. However, widely differing dates have been calculated by various methods. Some conservative scholars have more recently arrived at the date of 2522 BC.[1]
According to the Book of Jubilees, the flood occurred in 1309 Anno Mundi, and the Exodus in 2410 A.M. While the dates in Jubilees do not correspond with the Masoretic recension of Genesis, they do agree with the Samaritan version, which is arguably older. If one were to calculate the date of the flood from this, assuming that the Exodus occurred in 1208 BC, one arrives at the year 2309 BC.

Please also note that this is not the sole piece of evidence the Flood didn't happen. If you'd like another pyramid, there's the pyramid of Hellinikon in Greece (2,720 BC), but there are various other human structures which COULD NOT have survived a Flood that date to BEFORE the Flood and therefore there COULDN'T have been a flood as described in Genesis. I can also give you trees that are 4,700 years old and still alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pines) as proof there was no flood as described in Genesis. The total absence of evidence FOR the flood and the presence of evidence aganist the flood tend to point to it NOT HAPPENING. And no matter how many people think one way or the other, that's what the facts point to. Please not I use Wikipedia as it's quick, simple, universally assessable and free. I can easily give more authoratative references but you really don't need to bother - I only use an open source reference if I am extremely sure (from professional sources) that the information provided is accurate.

Now the interesting thing will be if you IGNORE the FACT the flood DIDN'T happen. We might have a bit of a trend here, given you ignoring your previous hypothesis has been comprehensively rubbished. If this is the case, and you do ignore the facts, I suggest seeking those of like mind at the Flat Earth Society; http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm - they've been ignoring facts for ages and could do with the company...

ill wish you good night as its getting on but before i go is this randon splicing.

Oh yes, it is if you say it's got anything to do with the Bible or the end of the world, or any other such extraordinary claim that doesn't have extraordinary evidence behind it. All you will do if you prophecy (or hint suggestively) the end of the world, or whatever, is be wrong, just like EVERYONE else who's done it before you.

a hole in the ozone layer 3 times th size of australia,

Well, we KNOW how that happened.

a 30% drop in the sperm count that is being blamed on all the micro waves,...that they want to increase,

Evidence, proof, sources... I know sperm counts have gone down but am interested in your claim regarding microwaves. But microwaves or no, the generality of 'why' is known.

thousands of species that have dissapeared,

Species disappear all the time, but we know why so bloody many have gone recently

a change in the world climate that they know will get worse.

And we know why it has changed... and will change... See? Random splicing. ALL those four 'signs' are due to industrialisation and massive population growth. They don't MEAN anything. As more scientific discoveries were made, sceintific discoveries could be made faster. Like Newton said, we "stand on the shoulders of the 'giants' that went before us". Man's knowledge has expanded exponentially. Three or four hundred years ago it was possible for a person with a great mind to know a significant proportion of what there was to know. Now we don't have such amazing polymaths. To be an expert in one field takes decades of study, as the corpus of human knowledge has become vast, Certain discoveries were 'thresholds' which allowed development in fields never possible before. Like electricity - skads of things can't be invented until someone gets around to harnessing electricty properly. Hell, we've barely been flying 100 years and we've already made it to the moon. The internet is a barely decade old in it's most familar form, and is now an everyday tool. Medical advantages lead to life-spans increasing and infant mortality falling. This lead to population growth. Add in steam power, the internal combustion engone, and wheeeee! We only waited until 1914 to have a World War because it wasn't logistically possible before! But given our advances in knowledge and technology, and the growth in human population, to expect no environmental damage is silly. Because it all happened so quickly we made mistakes. No one ever even thought about the ozane layer being damaged, or the climate changing, or contaminants from modern industrial society effecting fertitlity, as we were too busy playing with our new toys and didn't have the experience to use foresight, not having been through such a period (of break-neck technological development, industrialisation, urbansiation and populatiojn growth) before. But for all the problems, people live longer, even in the poorest countries, than ever before. People's standard of living even in the poorest countries is higher than ever. The average level of education, even in the poorest countries, is still higher than ever before. Women and people of all races have equal rights where there were none before. We have developed the idea of 'human rights' where before your rights were what the local king or priest felt they should be. I'm sorry you can't see the good for the bad.

You knitting together a set of things (all caused by the same factors), and then groping around to assign some 'other' meaning unconnected to those factors, is, well -you're perfectly entitled to do it, but LAST generation other people were doing it, and every fricking generation before that. Get some perspective man. Did you know there are Assyrian clay tablets that basically say "God, young peolpe nowadays, no respect for their elders, and the price of balm has plummetted, and there's the war with the Babylonians... the end of the world is nigh"!!!! Essentially, every generation is so self-obsessed and navel gazing, filled with their own importance and convinced that 'it can't get any worse', they end up making the dire prophecies that get laughed at two hundred years later. They are so unable to comprehend the world that will remain after they are gone they assume that it can't contiune without them, that things could not change more, or that if they do it isn't for the good, etc. I would urge you to break this cycle of silliness, stop staring at your navel, stop playing silly number games anyone could assign mystical signficance to, and accept the world is likely to survive you with enough of the human race to continue for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Of course there will be change. Get over it. Be part of it.

and thats leaving the bible out of it take your pick. if you dont beleive in god the only hope is hollywood, mabey thell get bruce willis and sly stalone to baille us out. try this out

Which god? What makes you think the Bible is more accurate than, say, the Book of Mormon, or the Qua'ran, or Guru Nanak, or the Bhaghadvavita? Whatever you believe you seem to ignore people believe in other gods with just as much certainty and faith as you. You only believe what you believe because of where you were born. Most people never change their beliefs from those they are born into. Why should you 'be saved' or have it easy just because you happened to be born in a Bible-reading country? "Ignorant" people who were born elsewhere and have equally sincere beliefs, who live peacefully with their neighbours, would seem to be punished for something they could not change, or at least have thing unfairly twisted against them. Is god unfair or mean. Have you read the Bible? Maybe you can tell me... but it sounds like whatever your involvement with JW's was, far too much of their pathology of belief stuck to you. "I am right becaue I say I am right" is a dumb argument.

43

Welcome to the world of 'peaceful' Islam

by Shining One in

.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel .

rex

Abaddon

Rex

Read and compare the texts of Islam and Chrsitianity, Abaddon.

Why to go at missing the point.

1/ No matter WHAT the texts of the Christian faith and Islamic faith say, the followers of BOTH religions have behaved in disgraceful, inhuman fashions at various points.

Is this true or false?

2/ In 1000AD Islam made Christendom look backward and brutal.

Is this true or false?

3/ Now "Christendom" makes parts of Islam look backward and brutal.

Is this true or false?

4/ Yet 200 years ago Christians and the various religions they were members of typically would have been in favour of things we would find totally unacceptable given concepts like human rights.

Is this true or false?

5/ You can claim the content is different, go ahead. But can't support with evidence any claim the behviour of the two religions is significantly different if one views the history of each religion over the past 1,000 years.

Is this true or false?

This puts you in an embaressing situation. You claim the Bible is, shall we say, a less brutal biook than the Qu'ran? Yet despite this it's followers have been just as brutal as the followers of the Qu'ran! What does that say about the average Christian and Muslim over the past thousand years? It seems, according to what you say, that Christians have frequently been less peaceable than their text would allow, and the average Muslim has been more peaceful than their source text would ask for, if your claims about the relative content are accepted as true. Shock news; Muslims are frequently nicer than their beliefs require them to be but Christians often fall short of the basic requirements of their faith!

The Old Testament judgements have absolutely nothing to do with the spirituality brought to us by the advent of the Messiah.

It's the same Bible, the one you describe as the 'text of Christianity'. The same God I assume? Did he go on an anger management course, or what?

If you will criticise what you see as offensive/immoral content in the Qu'ran, I think you'd best accept criticism from others about offensive/immoral content in the Bible. To try and evade it like that just makes it look like you have a massive double standard.

Read the history of the two religions in the immediate times after the death of the spiritual leaders in question.

And? For Christ's sake man; 6/ Jesus was betrayed by one of the Apostles!

Is this true or false?

Open your eyes, you're so eager to prod at the mote in Islam's eye you ignore the beam in Christianity's eye!

If I am a 'bigot' for pointing out the stark contrasts between the teachings of the two religions

... oh, I'd agree the teachings are to an extent different, and this underlines and proves MY ENTIRE POINT.

6/ Despite teachings being different, the daily behaviour of the adherants of the two religions over the past thousand years (and this actually applies to almost all belief systems) is about the same as far as humanity or inhumanity towards others go.

Is this true or false?

A religion is expressed by a culture, not a culture by a religion.

As secularism in the West has moderated many of the views held by society 200 years ago (misogyny, racism, whether 'just war' is possible, etc.), Christianity is expressed differently by the culture it enaminates from.

7/ Christians once went to war for profit, kept slaves, and beat their (what we now call underage) wives... and didn't see themselves as bad Christians for doing so...

Is this true or false?

8/ Now such behaviour is condemned almost Universally by Christians. But the book it is based on stays the same.

Is this true or false?

If religion expressed cultures then their behaviour would be stable and constantly in-line with the texts of the faith.

The logic is simple and unassailable so you can pound the keyboard all you like, it won't change the fact I am right about this. My argument is supported with facts, so you have to show the facts to be in error, and they are not.

Thus, although you are not being bigotted because of 'evil in your heart towards your fellow man', you are being bigotted because you persist in an unsupported criticism of another religion only achivable by ignoring the facts. By all means go over the eight true/false questions above and answer them, show me where I am wrong - you just saying I am wrong is of no interest to me, give me a decent rebuttal.

If someone said people with blue eyes were stupid, and persisted in this despite having facts presented to them which showed people with blue eyes were just like people with other eye colours, they would be a bigot too. They might not presist in their illogical insistance due to hate of people with blue eyes, but they'd be a bigot all the same - check the dictionary definiton.

Of course, if you don't like being called a bigot (using your own words and logical argumentation supported by the facts), then you can choose either to change your opinion to that supported by the facts, or to keep your mouth shut about that particular opinion so you don't get called a bigot for expressing it.

The choice is yours.

43

Welcome to the world of 'peaceful' Islam

by Shining One in

.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel .

rex

Abaddon

Rex, please don't be a religious bigot.

Religion is expressed by a culture and has characteristics chiefly formed by the culture, not the religion or it's 'source texts'.

Any study of history will bear this out.

People have claimed to be Christian over the years have approved or taken part in every vice and wrong imaginable; racism, misogyny, slavery, theft, rape. murder, warfare to acquire territory, warfare proclaimed as god's will. The native population of the USA were ethnically cleansed and buctchered under a doctrine supported by Christian churches, that of the 'divine mandate'. Throughout medevil Europe, down to the 19th Century, the age-of-consent was 12, as it was in some US States until the 1980's. Until the 19th Century women were chattel. Until the learly 20th Century women didn't have the vote. Black people didn;t have equal rights in law until the 1960's. And all of this in 'Christian' countries.

For all the fluffy bits in the Bible it is a brutal book; bears bitchering children at god's behest, god commanding an invading army that everyone apart from virgin girls be killed, and the girls taken as captives (which the soldiers had full sexual freedom with under Mosaic Law).

Many Christian countries are now comparatively civilised, despite the bloody nature of the source text, despite the bloody history of their faith.

Muslim cultures were actually more civilised (at the high of Islamic expansionism) than the European Christian ones, and also had the most advanced socieities of time.

Now it is the other way round. Islamic societies are backward. Mobile phones do not turn someone whose dad was a misogynistic goatherd into a member of 21st Century society who regards women as equals, any more than the son of a Parson from a CofE parish in 1856 could have been made to feel women were equal by giving HIM a mobile phone.

Islamic societies have gone for having a more peaceful and fair society than Christian societies to having a less advanced culture than Christian socieities. The source text has not changed. Their behaviour HAS. The variable is not the religion, but the development of the culture.

Christian societies have gone for having a less peaceful and fair society than Islamic societies to having a more advanced culture than Islamic societies. The source text has not changed. Their behaviour HAS. The variable is not the religion, but the development of the culture.

Thus characterising a religion as 'peaceful' or 'violent' is in this application ignorant and bigoted. Religions are reinterpretted by every generation in the light of the culture those people grow up in.

If Palestinians were Christians and Americans were Muslims, American Muslims would be tutting about the inhumanity of young fanatical Christian Palatinian suicide bombers blowing up Jews.

You can kid yourself otherwise, but I would LOVE to see you prove a religion produces an invariable and consistant standard of behaviour throughout the history of the cultures that express it.

If you fail to do this, your answer isn't relevent unless it is an aplogy for bigoted comments.

39

So NO Russians ever walked on the moon? None?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

hey guys,.

i was reading popular science and i staggered across a line that suggested that russia had never landed men on the moon.

that struck me as blatantly false, i knew i'd seen footage of cosmonauts on the moon.

Abaddon

No, no Russians on the moon. They were SO in the lead in the late and mid sixties. The current Soviet manned-capsule is the same basic design as the end of that period, as is the rocket that launches it. They have had no fatalities in the period the Shuttle lost two entire crews. And in addition to the other firsts listed, had the first space-walk and first two and three-crew launch.

They were ready to go, but their big rocket consistantly failed... probably due to the ridiculously high number of seperate engines the first stage used (The Saturn V had seven I think, the Russian one had well over twenty.

During the last days of the war, the Russians and Americans were BOTH trying to get the German rocket scientists. Von Braun was succesful in getting himself and most of his team into American hands, and the Americans got a lot of partially-made V2's and other equipemt.. The Soviets moved a lot of the scientists who got left behind, and skilled manufacturing staff, to Russia.

Von Braun was a war criminal who would have probably hung if he hadn't been so useful. He personally selected slave labour as a major part of his projects workforce (more people died making it than from the V2 rockets they made).

Korolev headed the most succesful Soviet team. He died unexpecetdly in 1966. If he had lived, the Russian's may just have pipped Apollo to the post.

The Russian's almost developed their own space shuttle. Here's the prototype

alt

... apparently now it is a theme-park restaurant...

16

Adam 4000 BC or 5500 BC?

by greendawn in

jw
friends

the wts always propagates the idea that adam was created around 4000 bc and thus the world is 6000 years old and based on this they had set up the 1975 armageddon fiasco where many dubs got ripped off.

what they never say is that this dating is based on the hebrew masoretic text, there is however an older version of the old testament "the greek translation of the seventy" which for all we know may be the correct one and which makes mankind 7500 years old with adam created around 5500 bc.

not only this agrees better agrees with archaeological discoveries but it was also used by luke to write jesus's genealogy in his gospel.

Abaddon

hooberus

The link you provided http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp#dating links to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp#f1

I fail to see how this could make a Creationist feel better. I mean, Creationists are constantly besieged with accusations of presuppositions, and to read a confirmation that Creationists ARE presuppositionalists is a little distressing for any Creationist trying to lend their opinion scientific credibility;

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

This is a all-encompassing claim - not one related to ONE particular theory. No examination of each case on each case's merits, just a presupposition. I'd me most disappointed seeing this if I wanted to add scientific credibility to Creationistic arguments.

Rest assured, some 'science' is dealt with;

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.

However, this seemingly pivotal evidence is flawed. For a start, there is NO REFERENCE. It also relates to a different species of pine, one that is a fast-growing (which is why it is a 'plantation pine') to one that is chronically slow-growing. The writer, refreshingly, has a relevant Ph.D so such sloppy science, missing out references and making tenuous comparisons, is surprising. Maybe his specialism (mung beans and cultivated fruits) explains this?

This paragraph is very worrying;

Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

The reason why growth rings look the way they do is that they are essentially records of the level of moisture and growth. New growth in spring is characterised by large cells; as available moisture drops through the season, cell size drops. Growth stops during winter, thus the new large cells of the following spring form sufficient contrast to form a 'ring' or growth band.

Less contrasting seasons and lots of moisture would have led to THE OPPOSITE of what is claimed. If the seasons were more-or-less the same and wet, there would be LESS discernible rings due to the smaller variation in cell size these conditions would give.

I do not understand how anyone, even a non-specialist in dendrochronology, could make such a glaring error. Is it possible that this writer's initial assumptions;

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

... are drawing him to, maybe honestly, make careless assumptions and unsupported leaps due to the underlying pathology of belief?

Sadly this behaviour continues;

The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so.

The basis of this claim is (why am I not surprised) the assumption that the Flood occurred, and that therefore C12/C14 ratios would not be in equilibrium required for a set 'start ratio' of C12/C14 when an organism stops respiring (and thus accurate dating by determining how this ratio has changed). The C12 would all be buried, whereas C14 would carry on being produced from Nitrogen. Thus, it is claimed, trees just after the assumed flood would appear older.

Errrr... for a start C14 would be buried along with C12, as if it is 'organic' material, it has respired and contains a C12/C14 mix. It is misleading for the writer not to mention this... either that or he is hypothesising about things he has an inadequate knowledge of... perhaps only studying until HE feels he has vindicated the position he had ALREADY arrived at before study. Not very sceintific.

If this organic debris decayed, any gaseous products of decay would contain the same C12/C14 mix, thus respiring things would have the same ratio AFTER the flood as BEFORE it. So the writer's hypothesis fails totally.

He is wrong on more than one level too; the MORE C14 a sample has the YOUNGER it is, as it is the DECAY of C14 from a known start ratio that allows age to be determined. When all C14 is gone in a sample, it means it is too old to date by that method.

If a mass removal of organic matter containing C12 DID change the ratio (which it couldn't as organic carbon also contains C12 and C14), then the removal of C12 and continued production of C14 would lead to MORE C14 than expected and less C12, which would means things appeared YOUNGER than they would otherwise appear. He says it would make them appear OLDER.

This is either deliberately misleading or a sign of lack of competence in even the most basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating. Lastly, but by no means least, he attacks the dating of Bristlecone Pines (where there are trees old enough to date an event by themselves) using data related to the difficulty of matching sequences of trees to date an event (where succesive generations of trees are used to date an event by the match of the 'last years' pattern with a successive generations 'first years' pattern). This is massively misleading and I am surprised someone with a Ph.d would be so sloppy.

Being guided by someone who is either dishonest or incompetent in the field of science he is hypothesising on would seem to be foolish at the best of times. And idiotic the rest. And hooberus, this is NOT the first time I have shown you either DISHONESTY or INCOMPETENCE displayed on Creationistic sites... in fact, last time it was answeringenesis too. To your credit you eventually conceeded part of my point.

Despite having this website shown to be unreliable, you persist in using it to back up your beliefs. Is this "building a tower on sand", or "a dog returning to its vomit?"

Sadly you may well ignore this, or simply be evasive and dismissive, using some excuse or another to justify (to yourself) your failure to accept answeringenesis is NOT a reputable source for scientific information.

If you are knowingly using a persistently inaccurate source of information, you have to take responsibility for using that inaccurate information. You cannot plead ignorance.

Would Jesus use a scroll that, when examined, was persistently shown to be wrong? Would he carry on using a scroll that suited his beliefs even though he knew it was persistently wrong?

I really don't think so, and we might just be seeing an instance where an atheistic humanist shows greater faith in Jesus than a professed Christian Creation Apologist.

Sadly I doubt you will answer these questions, even though they are more than pertinant...

24

Just to say hi

by fullofdoubtnow in

jw
friends

hi, i am a friend of dedpoet, i think he may have posted about me occasionally, and he has kindly allowed me to join the forum from his pc as i do not have internet access at home.

i have known trev (dedpoet) since he first joined the same congregation as me 14 years ago, and we have always been friends.

i was very sad when he left us some years ago, but have maintained contact with him, something that has got me in trouble with the elders just lately now he is disassociated.

Abaddon

Hi Linda...

Welcome.

I walked away in '93. At the time I felt I was completely un-suited for a life as a Witness. I'd been raised a JW, my grandmothers were JW's, my dad and two brothers elders. But I wasn't happy. It didn't feel right. I had doubts, but they were no where near as focused and certain as they are now.

This was pre-internet. I read entire shelves at the library on religion and psychology and anything that seemed appropriate. I went to college, then to University, and ended up studying science and literature.

In '97 I guess I finally typed "Jehovah's Witnesses" into a web browser. I've participated in various online communities since.

At various points I have found another reason why it ISN'T the truth.

Some scientific.

Some historical.

Some related to organisational integrity and ethics.

Some Biblical.

Some logical.

You can find most of them here in some form or another.

First, always remember that truth need not hide.

There is not one valid reason on Earth why something which proclaims it is the Truth (and ignores all the others that say or imply the same) should try to stop its members from reading opposing views. If it is the truth, all this will do is reinforce that it is the truth.

Put it this way (not my example but a good one). Say you want to buy a car, and you go to the showroom and this guy tells you this model is the only one for you. You ask the Sales person if you can speak to anyone who had one, but then sold it. And the saleperson says "Don't even talk to anyone like that. They are all liars. They are all wrong. This IS the only car."

You gonna buy from him?

At the end of the day, although I have opinions (and as you'll gather, lots of them) about the existence of god, the accuracy of the Bible, whether Jesus existed and whether he was some form of divine being, whether we were created or not... they are not important for what you are going through now.

All that matters now is that you have been lied to, and you need to make yourself certain that this is so, rather than accept it on hearsay, or conversely accept claims it is the truth and anyone who say different are lying.

Once you've established for yourself the truth is the wrong... then, slowly, figure out what it means to you.

Don't get sucked in by the next brand of religion that seems to answer all your questions and makes you feel good.

Don't dispair that you are in a meaningless, godless Universe.

There are people who believe every single point of the spectrum between glassey-eyed cultists and self-proclaimed Messiahs and stone-cold atheists represented here. And you know what?

Most of them are happy as the next person in the street.

Despite having been in a cult. Despite having YEARS of our lives sucked away, with education or careers sacrificed. Despite the after-effects of leaving on freinds and family.

At the end of the day no one can really prove they have "the truth". Unless god is a complete bastard (which seems unlikely), if it's not possible to figure out WHAT the right way is, then he's not going to be pissed-off with us if we use common sense and just try to be good to each other.

Even if there ISN'T a god, it's a pretty good way to live your life, as who wants to be shitty to each other? What comes around goes around even in a godless Universe!

Beware those who parade their opinions on the little details god wants... there are thousand of beliefs, most of which blithely ignore the fact all the others are also saying they are right, with not one shred of proof acceptable in a court of law over WHICH claim is true.

Concentrate on being happy, and living well.

These two things are a great victory, as they show all the dire prophecies JW's make about the lives of "fallen away/inactive/dassed/dffed" exJW's, are just lies.

Yeah, we have unhappy nutters in the exJW 'community' too, but then so does every bus I've ever been on... and they always sit next to me.

;-)

All the best