Posts by budbayview

20

Does God really care about mankind?

by Sour Grapes in

i am dying of cancer.

yesterday i asked my full blown jw wife if she could snap her fingers and make me well would she do so?.

she replied, "yes.

budbayview

Sour Grapes,

I am sorry to hear about your cancer. I have nothing to offer, and I do not know you, or the details of your diagnosis, but fight it, fight it with knowledge, and learn everything you can, and question every doctor, and treatment they offer. Doctors are not some genius wonders to behold as gods, and they will never have the same level of motivation as you do, because they don’t have the same prognoses. Use them as tools, but in the end, it is your life on the line, so fight like it is.

I do understand your anger; however, it will serve no purpose in the end but to spend precious time vexing on something that spawns negative thoughts. Spend that time with good purpose. I realize you don’t care to hear this, but there is a mind, body, and spiritual connection. Whether it’s placebo effect or something greater that we cannot fully yet explain, I have attached a few relevant links, one including a medical study on this subject, and an article from Harvard Medical School. I wish you best.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3396089/

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/spirituality-and-healing

114

Why do religious people make claims and then refuse to back them up?

by Viviane in

several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.

i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.

indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.

budbayview

And my response to Coded Logic:

Thank you for taking the time to respond, and I respect your position, and I do not condone any violence attributed to Religion. Nor do I condone any violence attributed to man’s political agenda, greed, and overreaching quest for scientific knowledge. Your argument is biased, and does not account for all the murders and blood spilled that man has done in just developing one weapon of mass destruction. Take the nuclear bomb that was developed to drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you realize how many lives were sacrificed in the name of science to test and develop that weapon? This is just one example that comes to mind, and there many more in the name of geo politics, science and medicine that has brought death to thousands of innocents and misled individuals. Or the environmental catastrophes they have left behind in their wake?

I worked for a large engineering company that had concerns in federal and government work. We had permanent offices on site at Oak ridge, Tennessee, and Los Alamos Laborites, New Mexico, monitoring and cleaning up the surrounding area for nuclear radioactive contamination. Deer hunting in Oak Ridge was defined by bringing in a deer to the check point, and having it scanned for radioactivity. If it was within a certain range, you got to keep it. Needless to say, the areas are quite contaminated. So, how many people have developed cancer in those areas that believed their government would keep them safe from harm? Or what about the nuclear weapons testing the US did off the Bikini Atoll Islands. 23 tests from 1946-1958. The military authorities, and scientists told the native residents they would be able to return when they had completed. Well, you know the story, they could not, as the area was inhabitable. But, all those natives believed and had faith in what the military and scientist told them and that they would be able to return. What is worse, is that our scientist hadn’t any idea what the outcome would demonstrate, so they required testing to support their hypothesis. Which is a sanitized way of saying they had a belief and subsequent faith that it would result in proving their initial calculations. But even with all the scientific methods they employ, they were incorrect, as they would not have misled the residents initially.

Also, do understand that faith is not unjustified belief, you could not be more incorrect on this matter and would do well to realize that the science in which you “believe” is based on theory and hypothesis, and there are many unproven postulates an all areas of scientific study. So when Alan Shepard was sitting atop of that bomb, getting ready to be blasted into outer space, you better believe he had faith. He had faith in every NASA engineer that participated, but the reality is, they had no clue what was going to happen. In other words they had a belief in something, and a lot of faith that they did their calculations correctly.

Whatever axe you have to grind on religion, faith and belief, is disproportionately targeted. It unfortunately exists in all religions, cults, large corporations, and governments. Blind faith and ignorance is dangerous in any realm including the secular and scientific. My point is that somehow having a theological view got entwined with ignorance and an illogical thought processes. This is quite frankly offensive. I work in the technology and engineering industry, I am educated, and also have a background in food science. I do not pontificate illogical unreasonable conclusions. I am surrounded by very smart educated professionals, and have had some great discussion and debates on theology, but what we do not do, is utilize a sophomoric ad hominem tactic to discredit the person on the bases of their virtues, and views. And when we are discussing the origins of the universe and life, I am sorry but at the end of the day, science (actually the political) answer to the question is just as silly as that of a creationist. We are all hypnotizing and looking to prove them.

In closing you said, “and that, my friend, is why I HATE IT when people try and use faith to justify their beliefs.” I sincerely hope you don’t need faith to believe in that the next vaccination or inoculation you need to get, because the fact is you surely do, especially when you do not know the outcome. You may have some idea based on statistical analysis, but there is no guarantee or assuredness, and that my friend is still blind faith. I do agree with you on one point, trusting in humans, whether secular, or religious will result in disappointment.

11

The Logisitcs of Destroying Organized Religion

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

they define babylon the great as the "world empire of false religion", and that jehovah god will use the united nations to turn on her.. .

the "keep on the watch" brochure says the following, regarding the destruction of babylon the great:.

"for our day, the bible forecasts that political governments, like a wild beast, will turn on "the harlot" and strip her naked, exposing her real .

budbayview

I see it everyday globally, and religion is currently eroding. By the way this is not a JW or political view.

The religious bodies and religious ideologies around the world today have failed to keep pace with the increased knowledge and spiritual needs and desires of mankind. The proliferation of the Internet has provided access to a wide range of historic documents, viewpoints, blogs, secular, theological, and scholarly information to increase ones thirst for truth and knowledge. Globalization and access to once coveted historical documents that were confined to the annals of the privileged are now accessible by anyone with the initiative, the Internet, and a web browser.

A Gallup survey of Americans' Spiritual Searches Turn Inward, states that increasingly more people consider themselves spiritual than subscribing to a particular faith or religious doctrine. A new phrase has even been coined to identify this category, Spiritual but not religious (SBNR). In a January 2002 poll, 33% said they are "spiritual but not religious" (Gallup, 2007).

The founding fathers of this county, and those who fought and gave their lives to build this United States of America on the backs a fundamental Christian ideology would be thwarted to see the deliberate eradication of their beliefs from the federal and state systems to proliferate a message of global religious, and cultural tolerance. Albeit, this shift may sound innocuous, and even positive to some, its message is telling and consequential; the US is removing Christian symbols and refraining from utilizing the word “God” in government controlled facilities in order to demonstrate impartiality. Our Current President just gave a speech and according to USA Today, “After condemning ISIS, the President softened his criticism by equating their conduct with Christians during the Crusades. In addressing that moral equivalency,” http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/02/10/president-obama-prayer-breakfast-crusades-comment-column/23148065/ Additionally, his unprecedented antichristian rhetoric and behavior is well documented.

I am not judging, just reporting the news. The Aramaic faith that spawned Judaism, Christianity and Islamic beliefs, collectively represent 60% of the practiced religions across the globe according to the List of Major Religions on the Adherents website (Adherents, 2007). Those are big lines in the sand. Religious ideology still dominates as the fuel for cultural discontent and war, so how do we get everyone in the world to play together? Eradicate religion and provide social control through other means. As radical Islam continues to gain momentum, how can we separate the religion form the violent dissidents? It is imposable. In my opinion, I offer one of many possible scenarios, religious wars will continue to escalate, environmental, and economic concerns will decline, freedoms will erode, and be replaced with consistent surveillance in the name of peace and security, government controls health and wellness systems, corporations gain more control of the food supply, social stratification will increase so that one percent of the population controls 100 percent of the resources, technology will provide an army of killer droids and robots devoid of conscious or moral sensibilities, capable of enacting exact instructions without any moral obligations. Once complete social control is established, the ruling party will have the leverage. These apocalyptic visions will be possible within 10-15 years, some may have already taken pace in some parts of the world. However, the point of this is not eschatological, or fear mongering, or religious proselytizing. Forget John’s Revelations, this is simply current observation and one possible prediction.

What will happen when you can no longer worship the God of your choice because all religion is outlawed as terroristic enemies of the state?

114

Why do religious people make claims and then refuse to back them up?

by Viviane in

several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.

i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.

indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.

budbayview

Viviane and all the other religious faith haters

I know I will regret posting this….but

Why all the hostility, why do you have so much angst for people of faith? By the very definition of the word faith, it will not satisfy you, therefore you should not be surprised at the outcome to your questions.

Also, realize that even in the world of science and medicine, there are unknowns, and have been miscalculations and error. Does it make them ignorant because of that, or any less intelligent for putting forth something that was understood at the time to be correct but now after refinements and increased knowledge the answers or solutions have been modified. Quite frankly, looking back at science and medicine, there have been some downright silly explanations put forth back in the day. But that doesn’t mean I do not respect my physician now because they displayed a barber pole outside their practices and would cut you open and bleed you if you had a headache.

Let me ask you a question, explain gravity, what does it look like, how does it feel, and if we are so sure about this force why can’t we control it or manipulate it? It cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against, why is this? Perhaps I should question its existence altogether? But yet, I realize it must be real, that hammer I dropped on my foot surely demonstrated its existence. But I really do not understand it fully, I mean, if I can mathematically quantify it, I should be able to come up with a method to shield it, oh well, I’ll keep trying the tinfoil hat approach, dah, because I must be an ignorant faithtard because I can’t explain this gravity force fully.

Why can't scientific people simply say "I don't know"? What is wrong with that level of honesty? Why all the claims to know stuff and, when caught NOT knowing any of that stuff, the insults, the subject changing, the pretend answers? The wild calculations of abiogenesis, the crazy story that somehow life just started, yep from amino acids, energy, a lightning spark and then from the primordial ooze, bam life just happens, and then evolving into an upright walking bipod much less just a slimy amoeba floating around. Really? This is as credulous a belief as any, and this is the best theory academia can come up with, “it just happened and all by chance”? I simply don't get it

Next time when you have to explain to a lay person how we can send pictures, drawings, books, data, files, etc. over the ether halfway across the world, think about your question of communicating to God and you will have your answer, and all the backup source material you need.

Look, I apologize, I am being really sarcastic to make a point, and I do understand what you’re conveying, but please do not categorize all theologians or religious persons of faith as unreasoned or illogical, and for the smart ass that wants to argue faith and reason is mutually exclusive, do not waste your time. All and all, there are many viewpoints to each side, I make no claim to having the correct side, but I do get to form my own conclusions without prejudice or fear of malice.

Nacho: I'm a little concerned right now. About... your salvation and stuff. How come you have not been baptized?

Esqueleto: Because I never got around to it ok? I dunno why you always have to be judging me because I only believe in science.

Nacho Libre

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

budbayview

Viviane, your questions in italic, my response below.

To say "the design of animal" is not implying a designer.

In the context Cofty’s writing, is does. He referenced attributes of the animal and all attributes have a specific purpose. Thus there is relationship between purpose (requirements) and the specific attribute. Additionally, according to the definitions at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design is does imply a designer.

Evolution isn't "by chance".

That depends on which evolutionary theory we are discussing, but let me rephrase. The deeper I study the biology of the human body, it becomes relatively clear that it is engineered and designed and has not evolved from nonadaptive causes, mutation or genetic drift (i.e. by chance).

How so?

The complexity and purpose of stem cell generation is pure genius. It is simply biological coding, the structure of the cell can be modified by giving it a new set of instructions (DNA/RNA). If one were to support the requirement of creating a type of cell that can be used over and over and morph into different cell types to fit a multitude of uses, what would be the most efficient way to accomplish this? By keeping the basic biologic structure and changing the program or instruction set. The coding (DNA/RNA) is a program design that when understood, (not that I claim to) has all the hallmarks of an intelligent creator, it was done with intent, engineered to exacting specifications.

What, specifically, are you thinking is programmed engineering by a designer?

This question has a hook and part of it represent the underlying fundamental issue of evolution versus intelligent design. Although, I do not deny the evidence of evolutionary factors on many organisms, the fact remains that there is no empirical evidence to support evolution jumping species. In other words, a fish is fish, a mammal is a mammal and humans did not evolve from some aquatic species. Evolution through natural selection is nothing more than adaption through breeding to generate the required traits for survival within a species. Whether this process is preprogrammed or a deliberate attempt from a higher power to propagate a species may be debatable. For example the process of humans selecting a desirable mate is built into our subconscious. The desirable physical traits in a male exhibit the resulting performance. Such as what a typical female is attracted to, tall, strong facial features, broad shoulders, muscular, and masculine features represent higher levels of the male hormone testosterone. This hormone is a key marker for reproduction success, and aggressive behavior. Known or unknown, we are breeding success or failure by the choices we make subconsciously. What Darwin witnessed concerning his theory of natural selection was a symptom, not the root cause. He did not identify the source of the behavior, I say the source is God.

Sure. But... there is zero evidence for it.

That is why I started by saying, “we can probably argue this till the cows come home.” However my point is that it is plausible, and actually more reasonable to theorize that if the universe came into existence as the Big Bang, it did so by the initiation of the creator as opposed to just happening. Nothing “just happens” which is why we have science, to study and provide answers to the “why”. From the first that man could write, he wrote of creation, this is a fact. The Sumerians, Mesopotamians, Babylonian’s, Egyptians, Greeks, Hindus, Aztecs, and Mayans all spoke of creation and Gods with names. Their only debate was one of whom worshiped who, and whom had the support of their superior and supreme God. They did not debate “if” God existed or “if” God created the universe or man. It is only recently that man has found the need to exclude God from the narrative and hypotheses alternative answers to the “why”.

I like what Voltaire said, "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.” (FAITH. - Voltaire, The Works of Voltaire, Vol. IV (Philosophical Dictionary Part 2) [1764]

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

budbayview

Great question, and many good thoughts and relative side discussions such as evolution and creation.

So, why can’t evolution be a tool? Although we can probably argue this till the cows come home, there is room for many hypotheses that will satisfy science and the theist simultaneously. Personally, I subscribe to logic, and science; however, that has positioned my thinking for an intelligent designer. What Cofty wrote “Animals are perfectly designed”, albeit supporting his argument for evolution, is in fact correct. Although to design, someone must act as designer. The deeper I study the biology of the human body, it becomes relatively clear that this did not happen by chance. The DNS RNA structure and programming clearly demonstrated a well-engineered model for cellular proliferation. The argument for stem cells alone, and their ability to morph into multiple cell types essentially through programming demonstrates genius of engineering. That said, I have also studded evolution and can see where within species, or as one species takes president over another, or when adaptation to survive in a changing environment is required that this is great example of programed engineering at the highest level. Think about this for a minute, if you had to design a lifeform to adapt to a changing environment, you would program in evolution to allow for these variables for its survival. It is not a slight on creationist, but rather shows the magnitude of intelligence that engineered the universe and all life. Now, I do not subscribe to humans or life evolving from the primordial goo, which is stretch for me.

The Big-bang, theory has relevance too for the creationist. We do it all the time when we use high explosives to start nuclear fission. So why couldn’t the universal engineer set up the physics, time, etc, to create and perpetuate matter into existence and start the underlying processes to develop what we know as the universe?

To the specific question, “Theists, why does God allow suffering ..specifically, the suffering of animals.”

In my opinion, collateral damage. I will further that thought tomorrow…it could be lengthy.

88

First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

by EndofMysteries in

first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.

how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?

does it make one make more sense then the other to you?

budbayview

So, these laws of physics that are used to prescribe logic to either intelligent creation or not, are qualified to preceding order. If we view them not as the bases for argument but the precipitating formulas and that they were defined before all else than it demonstrates intelligent creation. It is analogous to defining how the computer program will simulate logic. First the operational logic and language, then the program can be written to carry out instruction.

Therefore, time, space, mathematics, and all the laws of physics were defined or created, a physical construct or frame work for the universe and how all will behave with in. Then the instruction is given to set off the fusion of the big bag and it follows the principles of physics that God created to it expands.

There are no incongruities with science and religion once it is understood that there was no science before God put it in place, there was no physics before he defined it, there was no time before he set it in motion and there was no space before he formed it. It was nothing, a concept man has difficulty grasping. To illustrate this point, why don’t we know how big the universe is or what is beyond our vision of the universe? It is because our knowledge is acquired through the exploratory curiosity of mankind and not through original thought or a priori. There is nothing that can be done that has not already been placed before us in some manner or form. We (mankind) cannot conceive from nothing.

E=MC2 is just the formula, not the foundation.

37

Anybody interested in Judah Ben Schroeder? Here's two links. See if you can find who Judah works for. The info is in the first link.

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

http://theworldnewsmedia.org/charlotte+schroeder+%28may+9,1920+to+june+19,+2013%29.

and here's how judah looks as seen in a recent video - especially posted for those who knew judah over the years.

closet factory testimonial from judah schroeder.

budbayview

HappyDad, I went to Central Congregation when I was young, late 60s early 70s. Helped put a new roof on it once. Did you go there?

That was big KH back in the day, complete with an apartment for the traveling overseer, a baptism pool, and with a well stocked library. I would sneak into the library during the talks and read Russell's books, and I do remember the Schroeder's and yes his dad was a GB member. Judah was a skinny kid back then.

11

Help with an entrenched family memeber

by budbayview in

jw
friends

wanted to send this to my "active" sister in hopes of awakening her, comments welcome.

she thinks i am a heathen apostate.... losing my religion.

preface.

budbayview

Great comments, and thoughts, thank you all. I will certainly incorporate and revise my tack.

22

How do flood apologists explain these?

by marmot in

spear points dating to thousands of years before the flood (or even adam's alleged creation, for that matter) found preserved in situ among mammoth bones in naco, arizona.. or the 14,000 year-old footprint of a child at a mammoth hunting camp unearthed in a bog in monte verde, chile:.

the kicker is that this isn't even the oldest evidence for human settlement of the americas.

since the wt loves to trot out frozen mammoth carcasses as "proof" that mammoths died in the flood, who were these mammoth eaters in north america?

budbayview

Good question!

My 2 cents…

Suppose for a minute, that the dating evidence of humans and remains demonstrates that we have been living on Earth longer than the biblical chronological history adds up to? We can assume it is A, true, or B, false, and thus the dating methods flawed. So, who said it cannot be true? How do we know the angles did not descend from time to time, put on some human skin and try out the environment? It is plausible, they have been known to take human forum, albeit for more sinister antediluvian antics.

Looking into archeological dating methods some, and without getting into the technical details, I do not think they are that far off. I think it is more plausible to assume A, that it is true, and the Earth is certainly been around a long time.

I think it is time to start looking for other explanations to explain the gaps in the bible. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying to discount the Geneses allegory totally, but perhaps some details were left out. It gets harder to believe the narrative as is, as man gets smarter and indisputable facts start hitting you in the face. For example, what about Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans? Scientist are not faking these, this is real, and there has to be an explanation that supports the creationist and reality.