Abaddon

Joined

• started 167 topics
• posted 5,219 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Abaddon

• 
  29

  Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

  by Science101 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

  looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

  one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  You can carry on proving my point by further childishness a long as you like.
• 
  76

  Bill O'Reilly- Restaurant was nice, ''even though it's run by blacks''

  by nvrgnbk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  september 26, 2007 by faiz shakir, amanda terkel, satyam khanna, .

  matt corley, ali frick, and jeremy richmond/div> o'reilly surprised restaurant was nice, 'even though it's run by blacks': fox news' bill o'reilly recently dined with the rev.

  al sharpton at sylvia's, a famous african-american-owned restaurant in harlem.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Dortacular

  I don't need to trust you, I know that that there are bigots of all races is a fact independently. It is statement of the obvious.

  But just as two wrongs don't make a right, a whole lot of wrongs don't make a right.

  I know that if people know that speaking like an ignorent bigot gets you publically ridiculed, lambasted, humiliated, maybe even fired, they don't do it as often as when people shrug and say 'well, it wasn't to me personally, or my family'.

  If you act complacently in the face of behaviour like that towards others, it's more likely it will happen to you and yours.

  And if it is okay (and it is okay) for people to have the freedom to be ignorent bigots and speak what passes for their mind, then it is another statement of the obvious that it is okay that other people can speak their mind when they react to it.

  Keeping quiet and not rocking the boat because it does not effect you directly today will not reduce the amount of spittle and the insults that get directed towards, say, children of mixed race tomorrow.

  And come on, are you really telling me if racist rhethoric used by public figures in Germany in the 1930's had been reacted to negatively (instead of passively accepted by the majority) history would be unchanged?

  Are you really telling me if those pigs who dragged a black man behind their pick-up in Texas a few years back had had racist comments they made in their life reacted to negatively they'd have been unchanged?

  Are you telling me 'cripple' or 'nigger' became unacceptable terms because one day everyone woke up enlightened, or because bigots are really not that brave and learned to keep their mouths shut as they didn't like the reaction they got using those terms?

  Maybe they just stopped SAYING it, and maybe it'll take a few generations more for all their offspring to stop thinking it, but at least it moves in the right direction and isn't just shrugging and saying 'don't effect me or mine, why should I bother'?
• 
  76

  Bill O'Reilly- Restaurant was nice, ''even though it's run by blacks''

  by nvrgnbk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  september 26, 2007 by faiz shakir, amanda terkel, satyam khanna, .

  matt corley, ali frick, and jeremy richmond/div> o'reilly surprised restaurant was nice, 'even though it's run by blacks': fox news' bill o'reilly recently dined with the rev.

  al sharpton at sylvia's, a famous african-american-owned restaurant in harlem.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Out of context?!?

  The context was him expressing surprise that a black-owned restaurant with mostly black customers had decent food and a nice atmospshere, as though there was something about black owners or black customers that made this unlikely.

  That was the context and the guy is a racist pig.

  As with some racist pigs, he might not agree with the assesment, and some might engage in apolgetics to try and cover his bahaviour, but at the end of the day he was expressing the surprise that black owners or black customers could create a pleasent dining experience.

  This should signal the end of his career, just as the handling of the Jena case should signal the end of the career of the DA in LaSalle county.

  Even if in their little minds they aren't racist behaviour like that is unacceptable.
• 
  29

  Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

  by Science101 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

  looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

  one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Deputy Dog

  And today's raspberry for childish petulance goes to you.

  Looks like your about to find out that if you don't agree with this guy, you don't have "adequate knowledge" or you are involved in a conspiracy!

  I think you need to take a deep breathe and get over the fact science is not like discussing your favourite band.

  You can think Westlife are the best band in the world. As you are making a subjective decision you are right - for you. Someone with 16 Degrees in music could not prove your opinion wrong. But then you couldn't prove their's wrong either.

  Someone who enters a discussion on evolution and shows they don't even know what evolution is by how they define it is just being arrogant or foolish if they don't take the time and trouble to learn about a subject they want to discuss.

  You would probably laugh at someone who knew virtually nothing of cabinetry who tried to tell a experienced cabinet maker how to make a cupboard, if by doing so they revealed their lack of knowledge. You would probably think they were making a fool of themselves. If the cabinet maker pointed out the person was talking utter rot you'd consider it a fair comment

  Yet if someone who knows virtually nothing about an academic subject tries to tell someone who has studied the subject they are wrong about something to do with that subject and by doing so they reveal their lack of knowledge, you apply a different set of rules. If the person with the academic knowledge pointed out the person was talking utter rot you rush to defend then speaker of rot. Not that Science101 is speaking rot, but it is how you behave.

  I think you resent the fact people have to do some work to have a worthwhile opinion in academic subjects. Why not try to be more objective and accept facts are not always as you'd like them to be? Or if you can't act like an adult refrain from entering discussions on subject you are ill-informed?

  What those environmental factors have done is bring about a situation where (to quote SJG I think) 'evolution becomes aware of itself' by means of the 'chance' evolution of sentient creatures. By 'chance' I mean it could have been different under differing conditions. Obviously evolution has no awareness, as it is a process, but awareness of the process arises all the same.

  Maybe it's because you feel insecure if you don't understand something, and instead of trying to understand it you strike out? You seeing the above comment as double talk seems a good example;

  1. Evolution is not an entity, it is a process
  2. It is a process that produces organisms
  3. Before sentient organisms arose the process was still there but it was unknown as there is nothing there to 'know' it
  4. When sentient organisms arose then it becomes possible for the process to become 'known'
  5. Thus one can metaphorically say 'evolution becomes aware of itself' to describe such a situation as such organisms are a product of evolution but it's a metaphor so doesn't imply evolution suddenly becomes an entity capable of having self-knowledge

  Simple really... and even if I doubt your lack of scientific knowledge as regards evolutionary biology, I don't doubt your intelligence, just your willingness to apply it in certain areas where you don't like the conclusions.

  Science 101 has already proved they know an awful lot more about the subject that most people I've had the pleasure of discussing it with here. But at the end of the day, science involves facts. If Science 101 wishes to move an opinion of theirs to the realm of fact it needs evidence. There is no evidence I am aware of that would prove that the impression evolution has a goal is anything more than an illusion of perspective.

  Raindrops don't aim, but over time they typically hit the ground anyway.

  Organisms don't have goals to become other organisms, but over time they typically become other organisms anyway

  Paralipomenon

  Einstein believed in Intelligent Design.

  That makes me wince. You are ascribing to a dead person a belief in a hypothesis that had not been defined when he died, and by doing so are associating him with many negative aspects of a contemporary movement he had nothing to do with and might well have nothing to do with.

  There are plenty of statements by Einstein about what he believed that one can use without resorting to a claim that is at best a bit of a stretch and at worst deceptive, although I am sure you have no ill intent in doing so.

  I also doubt very much if he would continue to state in the style of a scratched record 'irreducible complexity' long after such a hypothesis has been refuted, and as this is almost defining behaviour for many believers in ID, to lump him with such is paying him no compliment.

  "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

  Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons

  Spinoza believed everything is interconnected within one gigantic system and that this system and everything it contains is "God." Thou art god, I am god, that there rock is god, etc..

  That is pantheism, not ID. ID requires a creative entity with no origin. Believing "the sum of everything that exists = god" is VASTLY different

  "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

  Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman (eds) (1981). Albert Einstein, The Human Side. Princeton University Press, 43.

  Seems he saw divinity in structure and the process by which it came about, not in an entity as is required of ID, as this quote confirms;

  " ...neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events."

  Einstein, Albert (1940), "On Science and Religion", Nature 146

  I also have to say that Einstein was a great physicist but I am unaware of his qualifications or knowledge in the field of either biology of evolutionary biology. Such a claim (Einstein believed in ID) is rather hackneyed argument from authority and as such is fallacious. It's a bit like quoting a cabinet maker's opinion on crop rotation.

  While I will never downplay how amazing the universe is and all the life as we know it, I feel the only way a creator will be discovered is by trying to disprove him. Continue to seek knowledge under the assumption that one does not exist or you risk seeking with blinders on.

  This I agree with.

  Science101

  But since I have heard evolution being called "undirected", "unguided" and with no "goal" the same thing applies the other way too.

  Apart from the small fact that as there is no proof it is directed, guided or goal-orientated, stating the contrary is quite reasonable.

  We will end up arguing semantics,

  You say that like it's a bad thing

  but that's kinda necessary for us to do.

  Yup!

  In the case of the word "goal" we're kinda stuck reconciling it due it having been used on the science side.

  Eh? By whom? And if so, what if? 'Race' has been used in science, but it doesn't mean it's normal definition is scientifically defensible.

  I Would need proof that there is no goal anywhere in evolution to claim there is no goal at all.

  Like someone might say they need proof of no god anywhere in the Universe(s) to claim there is no god at all? Not having a go, just exploring your thinking; you will be aware one could substitute any supposedly mythological unproven entity for god.

  Whilst the statement is true, one can also say if there is no provable god, tooth fairy or goal in evolution in all the study of those entities/subject areas, one can carry on acting as though there wasn't one, although keeping a open mind to new evidence is always a good idea.

  I also wrote a program that uses the evolution algorithm to evolve sentences and it worked great. I discovered that there was a goal, to write sentences.

  You didn't discover there was a rule. You wrote a program, and the rules within that program (which you put there) ended up making sentences. How can you discover something that you knew you put in there?

  You could equally write a program that generated random non-repeating number strings where each increment in the number of digits was also a Prime number. You couldn't claim you discovered the goal of the program was to produce increasing long number strings with no repetitions and where each result was a Prime number as you'd made that the goal of the program in writing it.

  The robot program has no goal; you see it working as a goal. Thus my point about evolution only having goals from certain perspectives

  Obviously organisms have behaviours that allowed them to survive as those without such behaviour were not able to pass their genes on. But that doesn't mean they have a goal to survive. Even the drive to pass on genes is not a goal, it's just things without it aren't here

  My point here is that in response to claims that evolution has no goal, I probably have more evidence that there is a goal,

  With respect, no you don't.

  You have a program you made which can produce words by applying rules you built into the program.

  Even if you created a program that made random rules and applied 'natural selection' by only allowing the variants which made rules that resulted in 'almost' sentences to survive and then apply new rendom variations to that set of rules to make a second generation of programs, from which you'd again select the best 'almost sentences', repeating the process until you had a program that made real sentences, the program/s has no goal. You are defining the goal from you perspective.

  Saying the fact that an organism (or program) that survives has rules that allow it to survive and thus a goal to survive is ignoring the fact that those which don't have rules that allow it to survive are not there to illustrate how there only appears to be a survival 'goal' on account of only things which can survive surviving.

  But I'm primarily self-taught in college level science I'm not connected to "academia" so I lack what I guess we could call it's indoctrination so I'm more free to challenge the textbook ways of seeing things.

  I am largely self-taught in evo bio, although I did study to be a science teacher at University. Having experienced both I would say claims of 'indoctrination' are not really credible... in fact they do more to discredit you. Without any proof of error on the part of 'science' you are attacking the credibility of it with a sweeping claim of bias. That is so unclassy.

  What you might be experiencing is the fact on a science course at University one thing you should get driven through your brain is scientific rigour. Some things are scientific, some fail the definition. Scientists recoil from unscientific stuff being inserted into science like people going to church recoil from someone in a devil suit with a turd on their head. It 's just WRONG.

  Someone with a understanding of scientific rigour is not so much indoctrinated but 'suffering' from very high standards of belief. The 'text book way of seeing things' is what reduces error in science, by rejecting anything which lacks scientific rigour.

  And yes, yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Coco the clown. Galileo could PROVE the establishment's belief was wrong.

  Most people complaining about the bias of the scientific establishment cannot prove what they are claiming, yet are making their failure the fault of the scientific community.

  It's like someone going to a club where you can get in with a duck under one arm, and making out it is the fault of the club they are not allowed in because they have a chicken under one arm.

  This is a very enjoyable thread by the way, thank you.
• 
  29

  Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

  by Science101 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

  looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

  one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Science101

  One way to avoid it is to not use them at all in a definition of evolution.

  Well, that's okay then, as they are not in the conventional definiton of evoluton, nor could they be without satisfactory proof.

  One way the word "goal" might be used is like in your example of the Irish Elk. The females loved big antlers so their goal in selecting a mate was to find a male with giant ones. That goal, present in the mind of the elk, in turn added a goal to their evolution.

  Mmm.... the goal wasn't present 'in the mind of the elk', not in any way equivalent with us 'having something mind'. It would be an institive inclination withnno forethought. And yes, maybe it's semantics, but that's 'cause it is science and not, er, thingmagigwhatdoyacallit...?

  Excuse my silliness in illustrating why exact meaning of words used in scientific discourse is so important.

  But of course evolution itself does not set a goal, preferences of the evolving organisms add that to the process.

  No they don't. No goal is added to the process as no goal is there.

  The preferences lead towards a goal if viewed from a certain perspective, but it is an illusion of perspective.

  Mr First Amphibian might think he's a goal, but Mr Mammal just thinks he's a frog...

  There is no a concious objective thus goal is wholey unsuitable a word for it.

  I think we could debate this one for a long time. But it would be interesting to see what happens when there is finally agreement on both sides, if that is possible.

  Use more suitable vocabulary and we might be able to agree, but I fear you're streaching attractive presuppostions round facts that don't fit them very well.

  It would be nice to find what it is that is at the core,

  No core, just apples of individual eyes.

  I am a massive Beatle fan and pseudo-hippy, and even I can't subscribe to describing life's meaning as love

  And I can't forget the Dover trial. I was networking with the folks on the science side in the Kansas controversy so of course when Behe was cornered by the astrology parallel, it was big news.

  Hysterically funny news; hoist by his own petard.

  I cite Teilhard as he had interesting ideas.

  But to see any 'steering hand' beyond environmental factors (and that includes the genotypes in that environment) is to start being anthropic. I suppose you've heard the one about the puddle in a hole praising the god of puddles for having made life so everything fitted perfectly? One fluid ounce more or less, and it wouldn't fit the hole!

  What those environmental factors have done is bring about a situation where (to quote SJG I think) 'evolution becomes aware of itself' by means of the 'chance' evolution of sentient creatures. By 'chance' I mean it could have been different under differing conditions. Obviously evolution has no awareness, as it is a process, but awareness of the process arrises all the same.

  To credit this as a goal would be to credit rainfall with a goal; rain falls as the environment dictates and evolution unfolds in a similar style. But no raindrop starts condensing around atmospheric dust thinking 'ground here I come'.
• 
  61

  How to stump someone that believes the noah's flood happened.

  by 5go in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the key peices of evidence that people sight to try to prove the flood happen is the fact the most cultures have a flood myth or story as they put it.. i was just watching a program that also points out the most, if not all cultures believe in dragons.

  even cultures that evolve in isolation have beliefs in dragons and they are all simular though not the same.

  just like the flood myth.. so if they believe the flood happened because so many cultures have flood stories.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  A good point Open Mind, but don't forget the civilisation which built it not only failed to mention the Flood, or lose any older buildings to it. If one tries to say maybe it wasn;t built by the Egyptians then (assuming the Pyramid was built just 100 years after a 2370BC Flood (which is unlikely as the youngest date its credited with in the article is 2467BC, the 'consensus' is 2589-2504BC, with any disputes making it older) it means that Noah's sons managed to build a new civilisation capable of building the Pyramid in very short order, and become worshippers of 'false' god's almost straight away.

  Thus the double hit of Khufu's Pyramid (which stands as proxy really of all the ancient civilisations whose histories we'd have to re-write to fit a Flood in) and Bristlecone pines is a good one.
• 
  29

  Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

  by Science101 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

  looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

  one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Science 101

  usually evolution is seen as a totally random process with no goal or direction but that is not entirely true.

  Mmmmm... well, it is goalless and directionless in the sense that Eohippus didn't click its heels together one day and decide to become a horse, or in the sense that H. habalis decided that life would be more fun with a larger cerebellum.

  Looking back we can see a 'goal' but that is solely an accident of perspective; someTHING doing the same thing on this planet in one billion years time would have a vastly different conclusion to us now.

  And direction is nearly almost as much of an accident of perspective; it might be fairer to say that evolutionary change has momentum instead of direction.

  If it were then the male peacock would not have the giant tail the female peacocks find sexy. Survival of the fittest does not favor variation that is easier to catch, yet, what peacocks think the perfect peacock looks like was stronger than that too.

  Sexual selection is a fab topic (your post is like Christmas even if I don't agree with you (which I've yet to decide, LOL); it get real dull talking to most Creationists and ID-ers as they critique a science they rarely have adequate knowledge of).

  Not only peacocks tails but human intelligence and the male human penis are other examples of characteristics that likely arose through sexual selection. Thank Darwin (joke) that the chromosomes that carry the 'smart' characteristics female pre-humans liked are not sex linked, otherwise human genders could have vastly difference levels of intelligence.

  But sexual selection doesn't mean there is a goal or direction; it allows runaway evolution, which can look very purposed.

  It's all very well being a hypothetical 'classically' super-fit (can escape predation very well) pre-peacock with no big tail who can't get laid (pun intended) as all the pre-peahen chicks (on a roll here) want males with big tails 'just because' that's the way the genes 'landed'. But of course, that's assuming their is no commonality of genes for big tails and being classically 'fit'.

  I mean if females select in their mates a characteristic not directly linked to 'fitness' in classical natural selection but which infers 'fitness' in the classical sense. A phenotypical characteristic is selected essentially at random by some females that ALSO selects for genotypical fitness to survive (even if it looks silly and unwieldy... hey, I mean the peacock tail, not the male human penis).

  The males get to survive AND breed. The females get chicks with genes for surviving, having big tails, and liking big tails.

  Other females who do not select big tails don't get chicks with the genes for big tails, liking big tails, and get not-so good genes for surviving, thus over a short period (evolutionarily speaking) the frequency of gene distribution in a population changes dramatically, and the having/liking big tails becomes almost universal in the species' genome. Females with other mate selection criteria may simply not do well enough to survive (genetically) at all, or might give rise to speciation over time.

  In other words, peacocks with big tails must actually be quite good at escaping predation, by definition; the females love of big tails also selects the genes that allow the big tails to survive despite having mother nature's equivalent of a neon sign hanging off their arse. But that's not why the peahens selected the big tails.

  Pre-human females selection of smart mates meant their mates were more likely to survive although that's not why they selected those characteristics.

  The extinct Irish Elk with massive antlers is possibly an example of where it all went terribly wrong and the females selection of big antlers became so strong the species actually died out as those that could breed ('cause the does let them) did not actually have very 'fit' genes in the classical sense.

  Obviously the mechanism varies according to other aspects of sexual biology; in some species females don't mate unless they want to, in others they have limited or no choice.

  I'd be very interested in hearing more of what you mean by goal and direction; if I mention Teilhard and the noosphere I assume I ring some bells with you?

  As regards the meaning of life, there is no answer (well, other than 42), just a question;

  Why do you assume there is a meaning to life separate from that which we give it with our own effort?

  Seems to me assuming there is a meaning to life is just another form of presuppositionalism.

  science and religion is coming closer together

  They ARE? I didn't realise religion had stepped from the shadows of opinion into the light of fact. Until then...

  And the ID debate actually helped.

  Helped show that even when Creationist try to dress up 'non-specific creator' Creationist dogma in new clothes it is still unscientific? I assume you're aware of Michel Behe having to admit in court if ID was taught in schools they'd have to also teach other untestable hypotheses like Astrology.

  Academia was forced to do a better job communicating with the layman

  I agree this could often be done better.

  and even though ID didn't have anything that could survive peer-review people who would normally not read anything scientific, were learning about how cells work and other rather complex topics.

  If ID had lead to individuals making a personal study of science and reaching reasonable conclusions based on facts it would have been a good thing. Instead the work of a few people was pointed to by many who didn't understand the details of the discussion, but who wanted to defend their pre-existing opinions and were happy to do it with other people's arguments and all the risks that entails.

  Despite the fact ID dogma like irreducible design has been refuted, the fact ID-ers typically regurgitate 2nd hand apologisms with no real knowledge of source data is proven by the fact most threads on ID on this website are full of people quoting ID dogma that's already dis-proven.

  Of course, as guiding lights of the Wedge Movement won't admit that ID is a deeply flawed hypothesis, their followers, as they base their knowledge on the leaders of the movement rather than independent learning, are very likely to make the same error.

  I'm clear you're not defending ID's beliefs, the above is just me reflecting on your comments about ID
• 
  61

  How to stump someone that believes the noah's flood happened.

  by 5go in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the key peices of evidence that people sight to try to prove the flood happen is the fact the most cultures have a flood myth or story as they put it.. i was just watching a program that also points out the most, if not all cultures believe in dragons.

  even cultures that evolve in isolation have beliefs in dragons and they are all simular though not the same.

  just like the flood myth.. so if they believe the flood happened because so many cultures have flood stories.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  As the evidence showing the Biblical Flood account is a fairy tale is freely available on the Internet, and as all here obviously can read and have access to the Internet, quite why I or anyone else telling them the Biblical Flood account is a fairy tale should make them stop belieiving in something they shouldn't beleieve in anyway, had they but done some decent research, I don't know.

  A Flood believer going to a Flood Apologetics site like that and having it proved to your satisfaction the Flood happened is like a Pedophile going to a Pedophile Apologist website and having it proved to their satisfaction that having sex with kids is okay.

  For anyone who does believe the Biblical account is true I have two simple facts that should prove to a reasonable person the Biblical Flood account is a fairy tale;

  1. The Great Pyramid at Giza was built before any possible date for a Biblical Flood, yet has no signs of Flood damage, not did the civilisation that built it notice a Global Flood washing them all away as there wasn't one and it didn't.
  2. You can see trees still standing and alive that were already hundreds of years old before any possible date for a Biblical Flood, yet survived it with no sign of any flood damage or growth hiatus.

  Unless you can prove these two facts are false, the Flood could not happen as the Bible describes it.

  If you need to insist every word in the Bible is literally true even in the face of firm evidence to the contrary to make yourself feel good about your beliefs I don't think you have the remotest idea what faith is.

  All you are doing is worshipping your own opinion, and a grieviously ignorant one at that.

  Oh, please realise ignorance is different to stupidity; you can solve ignorence by learning. I'm not calling Flood belivers stupid, I am saying they don't know simple or unreasonably refuse to accept facts that prove the Flood account in the Bible is a fairy tale.
• 
  32

  gettinjg my fiance out

  by TheGreyGuardsman in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  any help,were getting married soon, i already taught her about savation by undeserved kindness,i wanna open her mind to think before i get into any witness particular errors,i have on my site http://whoreallyisthefaithfulsteward.blogspot.com/ an article about idolatry i may statrt her with that so she will understand the wt gets things wrong and isnt inspired,any advice, can you email it because i rarely check this board [email protected]

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Guardsman

  Im a witness and i actually want to stay one,

  Oh really? Could you please post a scan of the letter from Bethel authorising you to go against the rules set for JW's and to visit apostate websites? At the same time please post a scan of your super-fine apostle certificate so we can be sure our 'wicked vibes' will not stumble you.

  but i want to get her out in that i want to free her mind so that she is no longer mind controlled, because she definitely is.

  And you are not? You are already judging us by what you have been taught at meetings and try to convince us you're not controlled and have a free mind.

  i want to be able to think along with her and come to bilbe based not coherced conclusions.

  What if you teach her to think freely (how I don't know as you;d need to know how yourself and seem very trapped and conflicted) and she decides the Bible is inaccurate and not god's inspired word? Do you love her enough for her to think differently to you?

  and as for that you have to respect her beliefs no matter what they are,that liberal remark makes me sick.

  See? You don't need us; you already know everything. And have already, despite carping on about wanting to free her mind, decided what she should believe. You are committing the same 'crimes' as those you condemn.

  and i would and her beliefs are for the most part mine, save for the overt adoration of men

  YOU are following YOUR own opinions. Have you not replaced adoration of the Organization with adoration of yourself? You can't bring freedom if all you bring is a new boss, same as the old boss.

  and btw i am a jw and a servant,

  And knowingly associate with apostates, which means if this was known you wouldn't be a servant and would unlikely still be a JW. So in reality, although the congregation don't know, we know and you know that you are acting as no JW should and as no servant should according to the rules JW's set.

  You excuse this by saying they are man made rules, and you are right, but all you have is your own rules to replace them with, and just as YOU would be condemned for coming here, you condemn us for being here by your attitude towards us.

  I think you need to get off your high horse and start being honest with yourself. You know that you knowingly associate with a religious group that is wrong and keep activities that would have you removed from that group secret. You have recognized that the JW's are a man-made religion, but whilst acting like an outlaw JW yourself treat us with the same contempt a normal JW would.

  I openly disagree about many things

  Tom the Elders? No you don't.

  I told her if anything goes against scripture ever i will openly oppose it

  Well, JW teachings already do go against scripture, and you are NOT openly opposing it.

  so if anyone has advice on how to help her to THINK and reason ,biblically and without man as her mediator but Christ alone,let me know.

  See, you don't want her to really think freely; one side of your mouth you say you do, but at the end of the day you've already decided how you want her to think. Coming from a religion mired in hypocrisy it's not surprising you have picked up some bad habits, but surely YOU need to learn a little about free thinking and reasoning too? You don't seem to be aware how hypocritical you are being.
• 
  139

  Guess Who's Getting Married...

  by SixofNine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  now guess when.. .

  ok, the who is easy.

  the when is not nailed down just yet.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Yay!

  I wish you both beaucoup love and happiness!!

  Me and my Dutchess are getting hitched next year, Ross seems to be a trend setter!