Posts by Abaddon

1093

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo in

if i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?

have i ever misled you?

i'll answer that--no!

Abaddon

Enigma

Please take this as a benign comment from one irascible bastard to another... one who has thus far quite liked the posts of yours that I recall and who utterly endorses your right to do what you're doing.

My question is this; who peed in your Cheerios? You're grinding that axe so well all you have is a handle!

I don't know if this idea will work.
You don't know if the idea will work.
Eduardo doesn't know if the idea will work.
Jourles doesn't know if the idea will work.
Auld Soul doesn't know if this idea will work.
The author doesn't know if the idea will work.

However, the peer reviewers didn't think their credibility would be undermined by allowing it to be published, so obviously some serious legal heads think it has a chance.

ALL OF THIS (not just you, and I do include me) is pissing in the wind unless we get the idea tested in court. It is not of interest to Joe Public at this time, it has to get "juicey", and that won't happen to any great extent until it gets to court - or more likely until and IF the first case is succesful.

Now, if the 'cabal' who have put this together have no plan, then I'll join you in criticising; I have kinda wondered;

why the release doesn't have a phone number manned by the cabal so press can contact someone outside of the University's publication order fufilment team (as nice as they are),
why the media people I speak to are unaware of it,
why the import of the essays stance being vindicated by a court case was not presented within the release in context,
why the deaths due to the blood policy were not presented as background information.

It's certainly not how I would prepare a press release. But I'm not in PR, I've just received press releases occasionally.

I admit my assumption is that there is a phase 2, and that 'wait and see' is the best option (other than a couple of small things I've done pout of curiosity to see what reaction they get/got). Obviously the 'cabal' aren't going to fill us in on their plan in a forum like this - it would be like mailing your Team's playbook to the oppostion.

At this stage what is happening in this thread and others is that presumption is fighting assumption, with suppositon and here-say calling encouragement from the sides. I know I can get over-excited about politics and science debates and carry on arguing over where a comma was in a sentence or who said what when and how stooooopid that makes them look. But none of that really matters as the conclusion of such debates rarely if ever causes major change in anyone.

On this subject, we seem to be losing track of who the bad guys are. And with this subject, the outcome could have a VERY big impact. I think we should respect each other's right to have a differing opinion on this, but try to stay on the same team.

We will know in a few days (the rumoured special talk) if they are reacting quickly or if that's blind chance. I have some fun opinions about them reacting quickly but I'll reserve those for now.

And the correct form of that sentence is;

At this time the WTBS have POTENTIALLY crapped themselves. The only way we will know if they ARE/HAVE/WILL crapping/crapped/crap themselves is by opening the box, whereupon the quantum state of the feces will be apparent.

Shrodingers Shit I think it's called, but I'm not very up to date on Quantum Physhits...

15

An Answer for Abaddon...

by Shining One in

you had a good question from a previous thread.... .

>oh, another question that the creationist or id-ot brigade have failed to answer is; if suplhur-breast-plated locusts are figurative (they must be as there is no evidence for them), how come the creation account and the flood account (which there is no evidence for) are regarded as literal?

if a person's faith is founded on jesus as the cornerstone and built on the same foundation as the apostles, this is consistent: .

Abaddon

OK Rex, fair enough, you've actually responded to me decently so I will return the courtesy; after all it is Christmas.

If a person's faith is founded on Jesus as the cornerstone and built on the same foundation as the apostles, this is consistent:
1) Jesus and the apostles taught that the historical accounts in Genesis were true, though they did not teach that they were comprehensive.
2) Since they taught this we accept this as a presupposition for the evidence,

In other words, because words attributed to a character you believe was historical and in a position to know due to his divine nature confirm the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts, you believe in them too.

Fine for you maybe, but you are confirming the authentic nature of the Flood and Creation accounts by drawing on quotes from the same groups of texts. This is like basing a claim about the corrupt nature of Jews as depicted in The Merchant of Venice on quotations from another Shakespeare play. Or using "All scriptures are inspired and beneficial" as a quotation to prove Biblical inspiration.

This for many people simply isn't a sound enough basis to go against the vast majority of modern science, including very simple reliable evidence (such as bristlecone pines) that preclude either the Biblical dating and/or the claimed global extent of the event.

I say "the Bible is not accurate or literal as regards the Flood and Creation accounts, there is physical evidence that shows this is not so", and you say "it is accurate, as in the Bible Jesus and the Apostles regard the stories as true, and they would know, so therefore it is true". Essentially you are making a circular argument.

If a document's accuracy is in doubt you have to show how the documents claims can be verified EXTERNAL to that document.

Obviously we all accept your right to presuppositions. If we ignore the fallacious nature of your argument (technical term, not insult) there are still problems. Jesus used illustrations, i.e. non-literal stories. Maybe he also used allegories created by previous writers in illustrations? Your assumption of Jesus' divinity means you assume he wasn't a human of that faith and period who WOULD believe in the old stories even if they were not true. If this was the case Jesus (a man) citing the Flood and Creation accounts means nothing as regard them actually happening.

just as a naturalist rules out any notion of the supernatural

Straw man Rex; let's keep this nice. SOME naturalists might rule out the supernatural as an initial assumption. Others may conclude that they find no evidence for the supernatural even though they would like to find evidence for the supernatural (me, for example), others still might not care if there was supernatural or not but find no evidence for it.

3) Figurative or metaphorical literature is best exegeted by referencing other scripture, in context and by the historical/grammatical method. I.E., read scripture like any other literature but allow for the complete context, the type of literature, what the writing mean't to who it was written to and how it is viewed in light of the revelatory nature of the New Testament writers.

What Nakisssos says seems an appropriate response here

Old Earth creationists and Christians who accept evolution are being inconsistent with the Bible itself. They have decided to compromise scripture in favor of making their view more palatable to the secular realm.

They are being inconsistent with YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Whether something is seen as allegorical or literal is all part of interpretation.

Unless you will claim here and now that you have an inherently right and true interpretation of the Bible, surely rather than casting slurs like "They have decided to compromise scripture in favor of making their view more palatable to the secular realm" one should accept that what you have is a difference of opinion. To go beyond that would to be imply you can look into a man's heart and judge. As a Christian you are no doubt aware that this is something you simply should not do.

Is a difference of opinion enough to make you break your Christian principles?

I would REALLY like you to answer this question.

1) No amount of semantics are going to change what consistent exegeis of scripture says are literal events.

Apart from others whose exegeis of scripture differs in all sincerity from yours. You seem unaware that one of your presuppositions is that Rex cannot be wrong.

2) Evolution puts God 'out of a job'.

Straw man. AGAIN. YOUR interpretation of the Bible and YOUR interpretation of evolution leads you to believe this. Others have a totally different opinion and do not feel god is affected in anyway by belief in evolution.

Why in the world would a person go to seminary, get taught that scripture is not what it claims it is, then continue to study and expound on a book they do not believe in?

A simple question.

Some Christians believe that god has been in contact with man over the years.
They believe the Bible is an artifact of a people god was in contact with.
It represents that peoples' idea of god, and the development of that idea. As such, and as it is not the product of divine dictation (as the errors within show), it's stories and views are shaped by the culture it comes from.
The Bible is not the foundation of such Christian's faith. They believe in GOD, not THE BIBLE.

Your belief in god is based upon a physical object. In a way, the faith of those whose faith is based on their personal relationship with god is stonger than those whose faith is based upon a book.

Those who assume upon the Bible's accuracy and thus base their faith on the book must respond to any criticism of the Bible as their faith is based on that physical object. A Christian who worships god in spirit is not forced to defend the Bible against modern analysis.

If sincere believers in god in the past allowed their upbringing to influenece how they saw god and history, and their views (be it about the assignment of virgin girls as war booty or on how the world came about) are incompatable with modern standards of humanity or science, it's not surprising.

You wouldn't expect a bronze-age goat herd to know anything about the development of life on Earth or to have an appreciation for the equality of men and women.

It doesn't mean god did not guide those people at that time, or that god doesn't exist, or that those who wrote the book were not sincere. It just means humans are humans.

42

Is Christmas for Atheists?

by LittleToe in

jw
friends

given that so many practises associated with christmas are blatantly christian in origin, is christmas truly for atheists?

i know that often there are few christian connotations attributed to it nowadays, in such a secularised society, but history is on record in showing that the whole baby jesus thing and angels singing with their "peace and goodwill" stuff is definitely a christian element.

would any true atheist today want to drink such a mixed cup?

Abaddon

I'll drink from a mixed cup, I'll drink from a loving cup, but most of all I love to drink from the furry cup...

On a more serious note some atheists might consider taking part in the secularised remnant of a pseudo-christian festival adapted from older pagan festivals an uneccesary compromise of their not believing in god. I somehow think the majority ding-dong merrily on high, and if there's a party in the prospect will happily celebrate Ide, Devali, the birth of Zorastor and so forth.

328

Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo in

(baylor university, waco, tx) an essay entitled, "jehovah's witnesses, blood transfusions, and the tort of misrepresentation," found in the autumn issue of baylor universitys prestigious journal of church and state, published december 13, 2005, exposes the vulnerability of jehovahs witnesses religious organization to massive claims for compensation because of the religions misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions.

this milestone essay critically examines one of the religions main publications for teaching their children and new recruits about their blood beliefs, how can blood save your life?

the peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.

Abaddon

Interesting quote taken from the thread about transplants -it's from a Questions from Readers;

It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint.

If they'd kept to that, the misrepresentation over blood wouldn't touch them. But with regard to blood they HAVE decided whether such a procedure is advisable or warranted from a medical standpoint.

This is usable in court in a misrepresntation of secular facts case. It shows that the Organisation WHILST KNOWING THEIR COMPETENCE WAS LIMITED still passed judgement on matters of medical advisability. They can't claim they didn't know they weren't competent, they've admitted it in their own publications

1093

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo in

if i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?

have i ever misled you?

i'll answer that--no!

Abaddon

I just ordered a copy of the Journal.

I noticed they were already offering reprints of the article and asked if this was normal so early on.

Whatever people's opinions are about the validity of the article, the nice lady stated this was definately NOT common practice but had been done in anticipation of the high level of interest it will generate.

Of course, I know diddly squat about American Law, but I do not get the seeming presumption some people have that this is Hayseed and Yeeha! Publishing, famous for the Waco Chicken and Rooster (non-Bantam) Review. I am as leery of religious instituions as the next x-Witness, but it's the taste of the wine not the name of the vineyard that's important. Given that, I do see this has a multiple year time span attached to it even if it works. Let's hope attention spans are up to it.

49

Debunking Dawkins

by Shining One in

a reformed response to: .

is science a religion?, by richard dawkins, the humanist, jan./feb.

the faith of science .

Abaddon

Rexy

How are you going to falsify this type of evidence? You can't test it because it happened 2000 years ago. That does not make the evidence any LESS VALID.

Oh Rex, if you knew what a big fat hypocrite you make yourself out to be... you can't even argue consistantly, let alone respond decently to faults in your arguments. I can explain EXACTLY how big a hypocrite this quote makes you, but it's more fun not to. Everyone with a shred of sense (i.e. most people) can see it. I'm not entirely sure if you will, which just makes it funnier...

No doubt in coming weeks and months you will carry on not responding to the faults in your claims, but keep on repeating those claims. You making a parrot-dy of yourself, LOL. Does Rexy want a cracker?.... NO! Rexy IS crackers!!

328

Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo in

(baylor university, waco, tx) an essay entitled, "jehovah's witnesses, blood transfusions, and the tort of misrepresentation," found in the autumn issue of baylor universitys prestigious journal of church and state, published december 13, 2005, exposes the vulnerability of jehovahs witnesses religious organization to massive claims for compensation because of the religions misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions.

this milestone essay critically examines one of the religions main publications for teaching their children and new recruits about their blood beliefs, how can blood save your life?

the peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.

Abaddon

Some thoughts....

Just to stress (as others have done but still people seem to miss the point); IT IS PEER REVIEWED.

This means very experienced legal professionals (more experienced thatn the writer and probably more experienced than any legal professionals on this site) find the argument has merit - and of course their analysis is based on the entire article. This is not some article by a student in some student publication, this is like an article in Scientific American or Nature.

Remember, tort of misrepresentation against a religious group for misrepresenting secular facts has already succesfully been used in court.

So, this is not inventing "the wheel"; "the wheel" has already been used in similar cases. It is pointing out "the wheel" can be used in a new way.

Yes, this new way has to be tested in court, yes the Borg will fight tooth and nail, but unless the underlying legal principle (religious bodies are liable for damages related to their misrepresentation of secular facts) is overthrown, or shown not to apply in this case, it stands a good chance of working.

But, like I said on the other thread yesterday (I didn't see the new one), I think the next step is important.

And that's having a court case testing this legal position.

If we want real news coverage (according to the journalist who's authored several articles in the UK press on issues regarding JW's) we need a court case. He points out the actual article is not rwally 'news' - to paraphrase him, it merely states what rational people already know, that refusing blood can be dangerous for your health and JW's are silly not to.

The articles in legal journals are of massive interest to us but of 'yeah, well, that's obvious' passing interest to most people. They thus have zero news interest to most people and many media outlets until a 'juice factor' is added. When the article leads to actual court cases, it's newsworthy enough for the mainstream press to take an interest in. For example, think of headlines and yourself as someone with a normal (i.e. zero) interest in JW's;

US law may allow JW's to be charged with misrepresentation over their blood doctrine

... is, let's face it, a headline WE would read, but most other people?...zzzzzzzzz....?

Whereas...

Class Action against JW's for deception regarding their blood doctrine could financialy ruin the cult

... or ...

Payouts to victims of their blood doctrine force JW's to sell dozens HQ's around the world

... is far more interesting to the general public... and to us.

328

Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo in

(baylor university, waco, tx) an essay entitled, "jehovah's witnesses, blood transfusions, and the tort of misrepresentation," found in the autumn issue of baylor universitys prestigious journal of church and state, published december 13, 2005, exposes the vulnerability of jehovahs witnesses religious organization to massive claims for compensation because of the religions misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions.

this milestone essay critically examines one of the religions main publications for teaching their children and new recruits about their blood beliefs, how can blood save your life?

the peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.

Abaddon

I just updated Wikipedia's entries!

Only quick entries based on the release, I'm sure they can be improved....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#The_question_of_blood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practices_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Medicine_and_Health

1093

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo in

if i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?

have i ever misled you?

i'll answer that--no!

Abaddon

I've just updated Wikipedia's articles on 'JW's' and 'JW's and medicine'

1093

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo in

if i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?

have i ever misled you?

i'll answer that--no!

Abaddon

dorayakii

I am trying to find out whether the same principle (freedom of religion does not protect from misrepresentation of secular fact) applies in English Law. I think, however, if one was suing the WTBTS of whathaveyou it would be in an American Court.

Again people, this isn't something that will change the world overnight, but could easily be a financial disaster that will change the Dubbies secular arm and destroy its wealth over the span of a few years.

For me, that's enough.