Posts by Abaddon

61

Stupid Americans

by Mackin in

jw
friends

watch this and weep.. .

edit: for the benefit of americans, the interviewer is not john howard, the austrailan prime minister.

:-) .

Abaddon

I have to agree... how over-sensitive can you get?

Think about it American posters... you got out of a cult, therefore you are probably NOT stupid.

Please note 'stupid' is being used in its everyday usage where it can refer to lack of knowledge as distinct to a poor level of intelligence..

As this is the case one has to point out;

Only 37% of young Americans can find Iraq on a map—though U.S. troops have been there since 2003.
6 in 10 young Americans don't speak a foreign language fluently.
20% of young Americans think Sudan is in Asia. (It's the largest country in Africa.)
48% of young Americans believe the majority population in India is Muslim. (It's Hindu—by a landslide.)
Half of young Americans can't find New York on a map.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html

And there's this;

Before chalking up this line of questioning to knee-jerk anti-Americanism at an avowedly left-wing gathering, consider the facts: Americans notoriously fail tests on geography and international issues. Most recently, Americans ages 18-24 placed eighth out of nine countries (beating only Mexico) surveyed in a 2002 National Geographic study on the topic. Fewer than 15 percent of US respondents could find Iraq or Israel on a map.
All of the other countries also scored better on identifying the US population than did its own citizens; nearly a third of Americans thought the country had between 1 billion and 2 billion residents. (The correct answer is about 300 million. But young people abroad didn't only know more about the United States, they also "had a stronger grasp on some issues that are beyond their own borders compared with Americans." Sweden, Germany, and Italy took top honors. Why? Their high levels of international travel and foreign language abilities, which the study found were predictive of a good score, are obviously easier to achieve within Europe for logistical reasons. Still, the disparity is depressing. Whereas 89 percent of young Swedes speak at least one other language and 92 percent reported having traveled abroad in the previous three years, two-thirds of their American counterparts are monolingual, and only 21 percent reported leaving the country in the last three years.

A 2001 study by the American Council on Education found that in terms of both international knowledge and interest, "travel abroad had the strongest positive impact on international knowledge," more than studying a foreign language or following the news.

According to a Stanford University report by Leon Panetta, a former member of the President's Commission on Foreign Laguage and International Studies and former White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, "as citizens of a historically and geographically isolated giant, Americans remain far behind nearly every other nation's populace in their foreign language abilities and in their knowledge of the world around them."

http://www.irincarmon.com/lettheworldseeyou.html

If in doubt, take Oprah's test;

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20021105_quiz.jhtml

So comments about American ignorance of the world are as true as the male human:sheep ratio in New Zealand or of the fact Australian men from Queensland consioder a clean T-shirt formalwear, or the fact that the English say sorry a lot.

The difference is that the Kiwi, the Ozzie and the Brit don't take themselves so fricking seriously and would agree and laugh... they wouldn't immediately assume the rest of the world didn't like them and was out to get them...

33

Christians are masochists

by onacruse in

paul: "we also rejoice in our sufferings" (romans 5:3).

jesus: "rejoice and be glad [when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you]" (matthew 5:12).

historical: "the apostles left the sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace" (acts 5:41).

Abaddon

onacruise

Well, ya know, almost every time I start a thread, and you post back to it, my heart skips a beat and I say to myself "Oh geez, what is Abaddon gonna do now to deconstruct me?" LOL

Ahhh.. I didn't know you cared...

So, it is with no small degree of pleasure (and yes, in so saying, since I've voluntarily suffered at your hands for the pleasure of this moment, I am therefore by definition a masochist!), that I must admit to complete agreement with what I bolded in your post.

No! No! You're meant to disagree with me!!! Argh!! I'm melting!!!!

48

Creation scientist resources

by hooberus in

http://www.creationresearch.org.

http://www.icr.org.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers.

Abaddon

lovelylil

You know there are some people who believe in God and evolution, and do not believe the earth is only 10,000 years old.

And they totally repudiate the rubbish spouted by Creation Scientists or the ID lobby.

Creation verses Evolution has been totally debated to DEATH on this board. With both sides claiming victory over the other. In my opinion it is a draw. We cannot fully prove God exists but also cannot fully prove he does not exist. And the evidence is in the "eye of the beholder".

lil, creation can only happen if there is a creator. Evolution could happen if there is a creator, or if there isn't. You are confusing the debate about the existence of god with the insistence of a vocal minority to ignore the evidence supporting evolution - the process as evidenced in the fossil record, not the attendent theory.

I beleive the insistence on literalism that some have is because they feel the need to insist that their interpretation of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is correct, and others isn't. Insistence on Biblical inerancy (or any other Holy Book) is about an insistence to judge others on a whim of textual analyis. Whilst they are free to insist that, they are obviously intolerent idiots.

It is good you see the use of allegory and metaphor. I wonder whether that is what a historical Jesus was doing when he said 'son of god'... and whether his last words were not "Father, father, why have you forsaken me?", but rather "For god's sake you moron, don't you understand a metaphor when you hear one?!"

The wisdom in Jesus' words has NOTHING to do with his divinity, ransom, or lack of it.

The danger to assume we can KNOW something that is unprovable as fact WAS true, is that we can be wrong.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out there are loads of people who think they can KNOW something that is unprovable as fact IS true and have totally different opinions and actions to ohers who beleive exactly the same thing?

In the absense of proof, what do we have to show that persons X's faith is 'better' than person y's? When some kill in the name of theirs (and all faiths have killed in the name of their faith, it's just some are closer to bronze ge goatherds than others)?

If this is the case, what are we to do?

Look for wisdom; the label; "Jesus", "Allah", "Vishnu", "The Far Side", "M.A.S.H.", is unimpotant. As long as the wisdom embraces the sacredness of life and freedom, it source is irrelevent.

Cephyr13

Go on then. Please disprove modern evolutionary synthesis. The theory is falsifiable.

Apostate Kate

There is disagreement in the scientific community on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics so evolutionists will claim one theory about a closed system and creationsist will claim another.

There is no disagreement IN the relvent scientific community about what the 2nd law means to evolution. There is disagreement WITH the relevent scientific community by a bunch of what would normally be termed 'quacks' if they were persuing medical practise.

~~~

One thing I have thought before and am thinking again... if Genesis was meant to be allegorical, a story explaining origin, you could so easily come up with something allegorical that wasn't so at odds with modern science. A story about the creator singing a song and weaving the Universe for eons, and cherishing the life that blosomed, and rejoycing when one of the animals gained the ability to think, and guiding them to peace and happiness...

Many mythic stories put man side by side with the animals as equals, and such a story would be a perfect allegory without any contradiction to the evidence that we observe (apart from the Universe apparently being at least -1 god... and people complain about dark matter... ), one that would make sense to the bronze age goat herd and modern man (who belived in god).

As the story isn't something elegant and translatable, it seems to me that Genesis is just another creation myth, and thus the book that contain it and all its characters are of a dubious hue from the outset.

Yeah, sure there was someone like Jesus. There was someone like Hercules. And?

48

Creation scientist resources

by hooberus in

http://www.creationresearch.org.

http://www.icr.org.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers.

Abaddon

LOL.

Look, Creation 'Science' isn't about 'science'.

It is about a small group of people insisting that they are right, and that the Bible is a literal and accurate guide to the origin of this planet and the life on it.

Rather than accept the evidence that life evolved over millions of years (which does not rule out god or god starting or guiding such a process), they insist it happened exactly as a bronze-age goatherd thought it did. And amazingly the stuff made-up by a bronze age Jewish goatherd is just about as inaccurate and silly as a Creation myth made up by any other racial group of 'bronze age goat herds'.

As there is massess of evidence to show this planet and life are older than the Genesis account would have us believe, as there are trees growing today which were alive when the Flood is meant to have happened, as the Flood happened when the Great Pyramid at Giza was hundreds of years old (without damaging it!), you have to ask yourself what should a sincere believer do?

Accept that god could make the world any way he liked, even using evolution, and accepting that as this is hat there is evidence for this is what happened even if bronze age goatherds thought otherwise.

Or insist that you have the power to tell when the Bible is being literal instead of allegorical, even if there is no evidence it was being literal?

You choose...

9

I could have been a Mormon!

by Zico in

during my childhood, my father would often tell stories of his life to me, one of his favourites being the story of how he became a jehovah's witness.

during some travels in the late 70s, he had his first real experience with the bible, when he shared a room with a christian fundy in israel.

the fundy introduced him to many bible topics, such as the king of the north and babylon the great.

Abaddon

It's like how Dubbies confidently attribute someone being disturbed in the act of commiting suicide by JW's on the doors and listening to a message of hope as angelic direction. They ignore all the people who DID commit suicide because no one called, or those disturbed by a Mormon, Encyclopedia Britanica Sales man, etc., who thereafter never get round to the deed. Or that as they DO go round randomly knocking on doors, just as they will frequently distrub sex (coz it happens lots), they will infrequently disturb suicide.

Idiots.

38

Why is Europe more liberal then the United States?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

i have wondered this for awhile and can not figure out why.

any ideas?

apparently being liberal does not lead to an economic power house, but it does lead to a lot of hatred of the united states in these countries.

Abaddon

The Cloggies as a group are the 2nd tallest in the world at 6ft for young males (1.83m), only an inch behind a population group in the foimer Yugoslavia.

And don't think the Dutch are Liberal; they aren't as a whole. As a whole they are tolerent; just because pot isn't treated as a crime and prostitution is legal doesn't mean they are all pot smoking whore users, but they support the right of those who want to do stuff like that to do stuff like that.

It is more pragmatism than liberalism; it will happen anyway, let it happen under some controls (like pot and prostitution) rather than none (when such things are criminal).

38

Why is Europe more liberal then the United States?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

i have wondered this for awhile and can not figure out why.

any ideas?

apparently being liberal does not lead to an economic power house, but it does lead to a lot of hatred of the united states in these countries.

Abaddon

The bit about Sweden not being part of Europe confuses me too...

... of course, Norway isn't on the map on the Euro coins and notes; this means Sweden and Finland look like a side view of schlong and ball-sack, LOL.

38

Why is Europe more liberal then the United States?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

i have wondered this for awhile and can not figure out why.

any ideas?

apparently being liberal does not lead to an economic power house, but it does lead to a lot of hatred of the united states in these countries.

Abaddon

It is simple genetics.

Many of those migrating to America did so so they would be free to practice religion as they saw fit.

At the time, this was often due to real persecution.

But the psychological profile of those people was the way it was in part due to genes.

America has got far more reactionary/isolationist/group-think genes in its pool as a consequence, as those migrating were far more likely to have such genes than those who stayed at home.

Europe changed. America changed less due to the concentration of certain genes.

Now in some ways the US is still in the 1950's. People in Europe still went to church back then...

( this is just fun :-) ?

63

Faith in God and the Church - Part 2 of 2 The Catholic Faith

by Amazing in

jw
friends

my story is sub-titled so you can skip ahead to parts that interest you most.. by way of reminder, my posting on "faith in god and the church" is not meant to convert anyone, because i have been out of the preaching business now for 14-years.

i am sharing my views given the questions i get when i do post about belief in god or my association with the catholic church.. why the catholic church?

protestants, especially fundamentalists and evangelicals have a hard spot with the roman catholic church.

Abaddon

Amazing

Why do people feel that they need to tell me where I went wrong?

Errrr.... you said;

I am sharing my views given the questions I get when I do post about belief in God or my association with the Catholic Church.

Which part of sharing precludes discussion? If I shared my views and you thought they were contradictory, you'd be free to comment or not as you wished. I would not be free to feign surprise that someone should question my views when I am airing them publicly on a discussion board. Well, I would but it would be nonsensical.

There is no comparison between the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Society.

So you say, however, I say an organization that practices forms of punishment such as "latae sententiae" or "ferendae sententiae" for 'wrong doings' which are not 'wrong doings' if you look at what the Bible has to say is remarkably comparable to one that "DA's" or "DF's" people for 'wrong doings' which are not 'wrong doings' if you look at what the Bible has to say. Thus I find your assertion (they are not comparable) unfounded.

Rather the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the historic Church.

Yes and, so, what? Why is it a good thing that they have been making doctrinal errors and fabrications longer than anyone else?

Some of the rest appear combative when there is really nothing to fight about.

This is a discussion; if being asked questions or being asked to back-up your assertions is 'combative', heaven help us all.

If I stated that Barnes FC were the 'historic' football club, and that the rules of the football (soccer) and rugby were not comparable, the first statement would 'mean' precisely nothing in a modern context as to 'authenticity', and the second statement would be just wrong; someone pointing that out would not be combative.

Just because your beliefs are religious does not make questioning them combative. Play fair. I understand you make no statements as to exclusivity of 'rightness' of the RC. What I question is you in your new search for a faith identifying so strongly with a organization that has many faults and non-scriptural beliefs, and (harmful) similarities with an organization you have previously associated with and left due to its harmful organizational practises and non-scriptural beliefs. It maketh not sense, at least to me.

51

My dear atheist posters, what would you recommend . . .

by pennycandy in

for a reliable, accurate study of the authenticity of the bible and/or the existence of god?.

.

Abaddon

lil

And you, prehaps unconciously, fail to see you are defending the indefensible.

The OT describes actions either instigated by god, or carried out by his followers without sanction, that are totally unacceptable violations of common decency and human compasion, let alone modern concept like human rights.

You seem to want to provide 'clever' readings to glaze over this; you might feel you can do this with the one originally raised but you make no attempt I see to provide a 'clever' reading to glaze over ethnic cleansing, genocide, and child rape as also described in the acounts of the Israelite nation. Probably because such passages are impossible to justify if one considers god good or just.

Worship god all you like, just have the self-respect not to compromise your intellect by thnking the Bible is all from god when the evidence shows much of if not all of it is just a historical account of sometimes dubious accuracy and morality.