he once had the hard rugged and handsome face of a hollywood film star.
he was one of those i feared completely indoctinated,enforcing his indoctrination with out love.
everything anybody did for the organisation was a privalige and all outside organisations were apart of the world, this included law inforcement.
So true, my own father now in his 80s, seems to relish the pain , heartache, misery he has wreaked on his family by being a slave to this jw cult.
He is a husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather. He has no, nor seems to need or want any family association with anyone.Does not welcome any visits and màkes it clear by his manner that he disapproves of all our life choises.
Outwith that we are a very loving close family. So sad his mind is affected in this way.
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
Hi, Humbled I would never say that people should not pray or automatically cry out whether within or audibly in times of crisis or need.
E.G I find myself inwardly hoping/wishing that my son who works in the oil industry will return safe and well to his family.
I am almost making a plea to all the circumstances which will allow that to happen ie favorable weather, his own safety awareness, a well maintained chopper etc.
But my plea, hope , wish even prayer if you like is not based on the supernatural. My hope that all will be well, will be absolutely down to natural and humanistic causes.
The soldier in the trench may pray , cry out to be safe that is part of being human, but what will guarantee his safety?
It will be the fact that all bullits missiles miss him and that he avoids capture. God will have nothing to do with it.
Remember theists must believe that god looks after his enemy also .
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
Seraph. Have you taken an interest in much debate about belief/ non belief in god.
The theists/deists constantly ask for proof from science of the non existence of god as a counter argument.thats putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'.
If you don't see belief that god exists as a theory, how do you rationally explain the existence. Even belief through faith is no more than guess work.
You say you can't get proof of something material from something immaterial, do you therefore discount the accounts in the bible where that has supposed to have occurred?
You say there can be no proof for miracles, why do theists/deists believe them? Do they just like supernatural fairy stories.
You say if you believe its down to your own judgement? Would it not be more intelligent/productive to have something concrete to base it on.
Science should be congratulated for at least trying to give an answer no matter how long it takes.
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
Seraph. I did not volunteer mathematical theory into the discussion.
I did not say science iS proof, I said science seeks proof, note the difference.
What science predicates (says in context) about a theory does not mean its taken to be true until proved false its actually vice versa,
Theists / deists on the other hand believe the god theory first and dare science to disprove it, should they not also seek proof for such a fantastical theory /belief?
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
Hi seraph. Would you agree that science has came to a conclusion about any study or theory using proof.?
If so then you are being with respect pedantic.
Absolutely mathematics can provide proof for mathematical based problems who could disagree?
As far as theoretical study to either confirm or refute ,as I said science is always willing reject former conclusions if proved to be false, unfounded, incorrect. Whereas theists deists can believe with neither proof or question .
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
Kate .I did not invent or define the word:..delusion , I am using it in terms of its definition and applying that to my own reasoning.
I do not intend to berate people , that again would be down to THEIR perception and take on what I mean.
I feel however you may be scolding (berating) me, now now then!!
It is not my intention to scold anyone, they are all entitled to their own beliefs, as others through this forum are entitlement to give an opinion.
Sorry for any offence.
Best wishes to you.
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
I have posted on another topic thus: That the limit of our brain(understanding to a correct conclusion).Could be god for some, big bang, black hole, anti matter for others.
The physical makeup of our brain determines how clever we can be. No matter which person calls upon it for understanding. I personally concede that there may be things we are actually unable to understand because of the physical make up of our brains.
However scientific conclusions are based on proof, if that proof is seen to be unsound, science has no issue with further research to reach a correct result.
Whereas theists / deists will believe without proof or question.
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
Kate .The appropriation part is how the term is perceived by the recipient.
The term or description, is correct. Unless you believe in unprovable NON..., SENSE.!!
it is not impossible to be a great scientist and a theist - kenneth miller and francis collins are good examples.. however, science depends on methodological naturalism - a working assumption that there are natural causes for observed effects.
please note that methodological naturalism is not the same as ontological naturalism.
in other words scientists may believe in a spirit world or not as long as god is never invoked as an answer.. contrast this with theism which, unlike deism, declares god to be immanent and active in the world.. consider a scientist who is also a theist doing research into the efficacy of a new drug that cures heart disease.
The human brain is capable of all sorts of trickery. Perfectly well educated people with exceptional skills and reasoning, are also capable of being DELUDED! SCIENTISTS AMONG THEM !!.
i'm new here, i pretty much created this account cause i couldn't find the answer to my question.
and my question is, can jw eat halal and kosher meat?
i was searching online but all i found was that jw dont have any food restrictions besides consuming blood.. if someone can answer my question, please and thank u!.
Billy.You define nothing as excessive? Have a you checked the dictionary?
However I do understand the point your trying to make.
You are basically apologising for the likes of Mr McLean( JW spokesman)who said "NOTHING that has blood in it do we eat".
The fact he is j w is not the point it would not matter which body of people he represented. I refer you again to the poison gas analogy:
If I say I breath no poison gas but KNOWINGLY brath a little, is that not hypocritical? What would you think I was being?
