Posts by Abaddon

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

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

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

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

Pom; Well, essentially, I think we have reached a point where we agree to disagree.

To me, your logic revolves around an assumption that god exists.

The evidence you cite for this, outside of the Bible, does not convince me of this. The evidence cited for the Bible being an infallable and accurate guide does not convince me of this. The evidence in the Bible does not convince me of this.

It might convince you, but it doesn't convince me. This is just a fact, and not a judgement of relative rightness.

Now, my logic revolves around the presumption that evidence is required for proof.

I find evidence for evolution; micro-evolution is demonstrable fact, there are the strongest evidences for macro-evolution, abiogenesis is the subject of a number of reasonable theories (and there's even evidence of quasi-live pseudo-organisms, like prions, that show the ability of a bunch of chemicals to replicate themselves by some means has occured more than once), the arguement of irredcable complexity is not sound, there are theories that demonstrate how the Universe could come into being without there being some entity to start the process.

The lack of proof of god is a convincing factor, for me, in not believing in god. As I've commented, the lack of proof is illogical given the reputed qualities of god, so either god doesn't have these qualities, or doesn't exist. I feel my logic is sound, and the only way you have argued with this logic is by scripture, which I do not accept as inspired, as it's not provably inspired.

For example, Paul saying that people without the truth doing the right thing is proof of god is, to me, just clever doublethink. Arguing that people would say the world's always been like this when someone prohecies the end of the world to them, as Jesus did, is also just doublethink.

Likewise, support for obscurity within the Bible seem to be attempts by the original writers to make the group of people who understand the Bible a limited elite one, and to make sure they didn't make any definative statenments that could easily be disproved. They are just as obvious arguements to incoporate in the Bible as the other two examples as above, exactly the sort of thing you would expect someone to put in.

How can I say this? Read other religious books; it's a pattern. Aphorisms and truisms interspersed with the unprovable.

All this might convince me, but it doesn't convince you. This is just a fact, and not a judgement of relative rightness.

I find it illogical that you are trying to follow the Bible's account literally, when it contradicts science, dismissing such things as 'unproven conjecture' from your point of view (reasonably sound scientific theory from my point of view), when your attempts to support the Bible literally are just as guilty of 'unproven conjecture' from my point of view (reasonably sound theological theory from your point of view).

So, I can follow the sequential logical steps you are making, but they are based on a premise I do not agree with.

Say you're reading a book, when a character is acting in a logical fashion, but the situation is illogical; A Midsummer Night's Dream is a good example. The characters are logical, but the scenario is obviously fantastical.

Your arguement is logical, but is based, in what to me is a fantastical Universe.

That being my opinion does make me better and you worse or anything.

It just mean we differ in our opinion in the answers to the search for answers to the question Why?

Thus, as we are both sincere, I say again;

The consonance of sincereity and the potential disparity of outcomes for us as individuals is a problem for me.

I honestly don't expect to be right. But I am convinced I am right as I can be, and am sincere in those beliefs. The idea that this might condemn me, or equally sincere Muslims, or a Hindus, or more liberal Christians, to some kind of punishment jars with any understanding I have of god.

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

8

If Scientist Mastered DNA???

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

some day maybe scientist will be able to read dna.. and maybe someday they might learn how to program dna with computers.. this to me doesn't seem that far away.. when they do they will be able to create new life forms, in effect play god.. do you think will man make life vastly better then when he can design it useing dna or someother molecule to make new life.. will altruisim guide him in what he does with his new abilities?.

.

if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.

Abaddon

I think that's semantic; we're both right, but are using words differently. I say they can read (resolve into data units), but acknowledge they can't decode the meaning of all those data units yet. You use 'decode' for 'read' and visa-versa. I'm not sure who's 'righterer' semantically, but it's not that important.

Essentially scientists can determine the base coding of DNA strands (GAATGAA etc.).

They might not know what it means yet, apart from a few thousand sequences here and there in various organsisms.

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

28

The rules of flame wars.

by Mindchild in

jw
friends

you might find it interesting to compare the tactics below to some of the recent flame wars we experienced in the past on this site to see how easy it is to get sucked into this game and why it takes days to end.

you can also see why it is pointless to play with those hooked on playing the game.. i took this information from this website but printed out the main ideas below:.

http://www.alsirat.com/flame.html.

Abaddon

I know that this behaviour is duplicated on other types of board BUT;

... as xJW's we are very prone to arguing like propellers... what does 'arguing like a propeler' mean...? Step into one and find out...!

We were taught;

'JW=right=good'

We have removed the JW bit, or most of us have, so subconsciously we still have elements of;

'right=good'

... in out world view. An opinion in not just an opinion, it is a moral stance.

Also, as JW's, we picked up the 'can never be wrongs'.

Do you think you can be a member of an Organisation which has, I think ONCE, in its history, acknowledged it may have got something slightly wrong (the rest of the time they were right at the time bu now is a new time with a new right, oh holy new light), and not have this rub off?

We also have 'disagree=bad', for anyone who disagrees with the Borg is bad, and we just pick up the habits...

Obviously neverJW's have 'right=good', 'disagree=bad' and 'never wrong' as parts of their personality, just as xJW's do, but I think we have more of it, and not only am I right, I'm good, you're bad just because you disagree with me as I cannot be wrong, okay?

Oh yeah, another factor is many JW's have the social skills of a stoat, and just sticking an x in front of the JW does not change this, you humongous bunch of turds.

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

8

If Scientist Mastered DNA???

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

some day maybe scientist will be able to read dna.. and maybe someday they might learn how to program dna with computers.. this to me doesn't seem that far away.. when they do they will be able to create new life forms, in effect play god.. do you think will man make life vastly better then when he can design it useing dna or someother molecule to make new life.. will altruisim guide him in what he does with his new abilities?.

.

if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.

Abaddon

Some day? They can read DNA. They can 'programme' DNA too, but technology is quite crude.

As for new life... well, that would be a massive undertaking, only possible with a significant increase in technology; modification of existing life will continue, and techiques will improve.

I would imagine within two hundred years many genetic defects that are passed on nowadays will have died out; short and long sight, genetic disease, propencity to cancer, etc.. People will also have really good immune systems and possibly some tinkering to lengthen life. Spot mutations will still take place, as it's 'natures way', but will often be remediable.

I do think the fuss over genetic manipulation will die down in time. Unless of course the doom-sayers are right, people will see that it's essentially a harmless thing

I think certain breeds of pedigree dogs (like the Pekinese) are examples of the 'damage' GM can do (hip dysplacia and breathing/sight problems) than soya beans.

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

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

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

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

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

RWC; our idea of evidence or burden of proof are rather different!

The Gospels were written after Jesus' death. The most obvious conclusion, as the Bible cannot be proven to be accurate as an inspired book might be, is that they specifically fufilled the prophecies of the Messiah to give crdence to the story of Jesus. You don't have to agree with me, by all means, feel free to have the last word...

... but could I just point out you've not answered this;

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

or this;

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

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

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

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

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

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

I suppose it illustrates one thing; what to me is a reasonable trail of logic (no evidence, no god (and you know that's a VERY simplistic abstraction) to you is unsupportable. What to you is a reasonable trail of logic to me is unsupported conjecture.

We both, I think, are very sincere in our analysis, but have results.

The consonance of sincereity and the potential disparity of outcomes for us as individuals is a problem for me.

I honestly don't expect to be right. But I am convinced I am right as I can be. The idea that this might condemn me, or equally sincere Muslims, or a Hindus, or more liberal Christians, to some kind of punishment jars with any understanding I have of god.

As you point out, it is god's job alone to prove he exists. And he hasn't. Quand Erat Demonstrandum.

I'm more than happy if you want to carry on with Genesis, especially with the reconcilliation of science and scripture which you believe, as something of a literalist, is possible.

But I think we both know that we are going to have to accept each others right to differ, as it is unlikely that either one of us is going to refine our paradigms in light of the others evidence, as neither of us feel the other has evidence that would warrent this.

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

16

New York Times & UN/WTS

by biblexaminer in

new york times december 15, 2001 .

in a startling revelation, the watchtower bible and tract society of brooklyn ny, parent organization to the jehovah's witness religion, was exposed for a stark contradiction in their religious practices.. it was revealed this week by the guardian (a leading uk newspaper) that the governing body of the watchtower religion had secretly erected a christmas tree in celebration of the festive season.

when the facts were made public this week, the watchtower quickly, and quietly, removed the tree to another location.. paul gilles, spokesman for the watchtower in great briton, wrote a letter to the guardian, in which he stated that the "tree was in no way secret" and that it was "necessary to gain access to the un library".

Abaddon

Nice post, very funny, and very OBVIOUSLY not meant to be taken as 'real'.

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

6

Medieval Kingdom Test

by Scorpion in

find out what occupation you would have if you were living in a medieval kingdom.. > http://www.cmi-lmi.com/cgibin/king5.cgi.

i was a white knight

Abaddon

It's great being King!!;

Your distinct personality, The Benevolent Ruler might be found in most of the thriving kingdoms of the time. You are the idealistic social dreamer. Your overriding goal is to solve the people problems of your world. You are a social reformer who wants everyone to be happy in a world that you can visualize. You are exceptionally perceptive about the woes and needs of humankind. You often have the understanding and skill to readily conceive and implement the solutions to your perceptions. On the positive side, you are creatively persuasive, charismatic and ideologically concerned. On the negative side, you may be unrealistically sentimental, scattered and impulsive, as well as deviously manipulative. Interestingly, your preference is just as applicable in today's corporate kingdoms.

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

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

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

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

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

Sorry Pom; I wasn't ignoring you, I think you were typing yours yesterday whilst I typed mine.

I am still with you. My incongurity is going 'twang' though. It seems to fit the idea of 'god' in, you are prepared to come up with any required supposition, like;

if god knew there would be a fall, then god is source of evil

but god cannot be evil, so he did not know of fall

so god couldn't be omniscient then

but god is omniscient now

so god made himself omniscient at some point

It's a great story, but I think you realise that this is unprovable conjecture, which is something you critisize scientists for!

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

11

post your funniest Accidental Decapitation story

by Nathan Natas in

jw
friends

let's yuk it up!.

'tis the season to be jolly!.

hey, if you don't have one - make one up - no one will bethe wiser!.

Abaddon

There is another thread where the 'freedom of speech' was being discussed.

I thought it was reasonable to restrict the freedom of speech if such freedom infringed upon the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others, for example, homophobic or racist hate speech. You know the sort of comment by a bigot that makes people worry about their safety, because it comes from a priest, or politician, or some one in a position of authority... the "gays are a sickness and a threat to society" kind of thing, with a contextual subtext of "so make'm suffer".

Most people growled about freedom of speech, even though other rights are infringed by hate speech.

Now, am I to understand that we shouldn't talk about things that people find offensive or upsetting?

But that it is okay to say 'homosexuality is a sickness and a danger to society', even if that puts others in fear of their safety?

With full respect to the unpleasent memories this might have bought up for one poster, isn't that a bit screwed up?

I exclude Edward Pooles 'suicide' note; that's clearly idiotic and falls under the yelling 'fire' in a theatre. But I am afraid I find bigotry far more offensive than decapitation.

My cousin's wife is a nurse. She has the nastiest stories. A motorbike courier was taking a package along an elevated section of 'freeway' in London, travelling at about 70mph between lines of stationary traffic. A truck with a flat loadbed shifted lanes in front of him, WAY to close for him to stop. They found his helmet UNDER the elevated 'freeway'. Do the maths.

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