zarco; i didn't like your answer on the blood issue. screw the new aug 2006 afake on blood. i know many old time jw's that will refuse any blood fractions. and the hlc will just let them die. check the wt news .com etc. you will find at least a few jw's that die from blood every week. and that's just what comes in the united states news. your position is sickening. if i remember correctly from what is reported in the news over 1000 jw's die a year . from blood issues. i'm sure it's 10x that amount. with out news coverage. how about the wt ban in organ transplants from 1967-1980 what the hell was that about. pure bullshit. i knew a jw that needed a kidney from the 70's well she died. why because of the wts.all these scum bag's in crooklyn can drop dead today . and i still wouldn't be happy. you want to serve in the kingdumb hall. and talk about their new blood policy. you will have blood on your hands . just by passing out one blood card. i understan d were your at. and you have a long way to go. to even be forgiven for your sins. as you seem to know . the wacktower babble and crack soc. is full of shit. you can't fool me . even ray franz coudn't reform the wt. what in the world makes you think you can help? walk away and help yourself. john
Say You're a Bethelite & Monitoring JWD - How Would You Feel About THESE??
by Seeker4 356 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
MsMcDucket
Zarco, are you a stauch elder that does not listen to women? Are you offended when a woman tries to teach you? I need to know, so that I will not further offend you.
-
AlanF
Zarco said:
: I would encourage you to go to any university and ask any scientist if they can prove the big bang therory.
No scientist worth his salt would ever claim that a theory can be "proved", because absolute proof in the real world does not exist. Proof in the absolute sense exists only in things like mathematics, where all assumptions can be laid out in advance and strict logic determines the outcome of arranging the assumptions. Stephen Jay Gould wrote some excellent words about this, as it relates to evolution:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" -- part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science -- that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [Ashley Montagu, ed., Science and Creationism, pp. 118-119]
Given that, the notion of a "big bang" is fairly well "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
: While you are at the university I would ask a proponent of string theory where their theroy breaks down mathmatically.
This is a very bad example. A growing number of physicists put little stock in string theory, as shown by a review of two critical books in the September, 2006 issue of Scientific American ( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000713DC-8161-14E3-BAEC83414B7F0000&sc=I100322 ). String theory is a mathematical attempt to describe the physics underlying the universe, and as such it is valid only to the extent to which it can be experimentally verified. So far, it has not been. This is very different from the mathematics underlying theories like quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang, etc.
: Can micro evolution be proven - yes.
It is directly observed.
: Can macro evolution be proven, go and ask.
It is indirectly observed, through the fossil record. These observations are in Gould's category of being extremely well confirmed. What is not so well confirmed is the mechanism for the long term changes observed in life. Darwin's mechanism? Who knows for sure? One not yet proposed? Maybe. Direction by some super duper creative power? I certainly don't know for sure. Do you? If you propose God as this creative power, then who created him? No excuses like, "God has always existed" -- accepting this line of reasoning automatically forces one to accept that in some sense, the macro-cosmic universe has always existed, and so nothing is really answered.
: I would be happy to engage you on this topic in another forum if you would like, but only after you ask to the two questions I suggest.
That would make for an interesting thread.
AlanF
-
Arthur
It was scriptures like Matt. 10:34-39 which eventually turned me away from God in my heart. No God that demands what Matt 10:34-39 demands is a loving god who understands human nature.
With all due respect, danile-p, I think that you may be still looking at the scripture through JW lenses. JWs interpret this as having to work themselves to death performing endless busy work for the WTS in order to earn their salvation.
There are many different ways that this sripture can be interpreted. When Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace; it can be interpreted that his message of unconditonal love for one's fellow man would be a message that was unacceptable to many. (look at how the Romans reacted to it)
In terms of the division among families, Jesus knew that his simple message of love was going to infuriate "fathers" and "mothers" who were still devoted to the Jewish system containing burdensome rules and rituals. To these people, Jesus' message was contemptable.
When Jesus spoke of people picking up their torture stake and following him; it can generally be understood that their new decision to follow Jesus' simple teachings would bring trouble to their lives. Remember: Jesus message was considered apostasy to the Pharisees.
Jesus simple and profound message of unconditional love and selfless service to one's fellow humans was considered as "contemptable" to the religious elites. Even today; Jesus' teachings are too simple for many religionists to accept. They have to go muck it up with a bunch of pseudo-Christian teachings that totally distort what he really taught.
I was like you; until I quit looking at these NT accounts through WTS interpretative lenses. When I discarded the WTS's interpretations; such accounts made so much more sense.
-
zarco
johnny cip,
I did not mean to offend anyone with my response on the blood issue. I realize that when the "truth" changes and someone who follows the "old truth" dies that someone is blood guilty - but it is not me. I will let Jah sort that out. My response was to parakeet who asked what would I do in these situations. My response was worded as theory, but in practice it is true as well, that is what I believe and what I will do. Your personal experience with this issue is heartbreaking. I believe there is a God who will make this right.
My point about the blood issue is that a reform is taking place - a dramatic one - this does not bring comfort for those who followed a flawed policy in the past - but it is movement.
Again - I am very sorry for your loss
-
zarco
Ms McDucket,
The women in my life (wife and daughter) say that they have me completely in control. And yes I respect women very much. One of my favorite stories is how Jesus really opened the apostles eyes by using lowly women:) to annouce his resurection. Regarding your question, I am not scared at all to ask the questions raised in your post. I believe there is a God - a Creator. I believe there is a right way to worship him and I give it my best shot. I investigate everything that is taught by the Society and some of it is not based on the Bible. I try to teach what I believe is based on Scripture, if I fail then I fail, but it is better to try than not try at all. I think I can act within the confines of the organization right now..... dont know for how long.
-
Gill
Zarco - You are no longer operating within the confines of the Organization if you are posting on this board. You have officially overstepped the mark now!
It seems you know that the rest of the teachings are also BS! How long can you keep up the deception? How long can you be blood guilty by handing out the 'No blood' cards? How long can you be part of the DF'ing arrangement when you know that in the Watchtower eyes you are sinning more than those you are DFing?
You've already taken the blue pill.
You can't go back!
-
zarco
AlanF,
I realize it is a little unfair to ask a question without stating my position but I have a gathering to attend in a few minutes.
This is a very bad example. A growing number of physicists put little stock in string theory, as shown by a review of two critical books in the September, 2006 issue of Scientific American ( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000713DC-8161-14E3-BAEC83414B7F0000&sc=I100322 ). String theory is a mathematical attempt to describe the physics underlying the universe, and as such it is valid only to the extent to which it can be experimentally verified. So far, it has not been. This is very different from the mathematics underlying theories like quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang, etc.
But this wasn't such a bad example 5 to 8 years ago. It was the a supported explaination of truth. If we are going to examine the organization by what they said and what is true, shouldn't we examine science using the same standards?
-
daniel-p
I try to teach what I believe is based on Scripture, if I fail then I fail, but it is better to try than not try at all. I think I can act within the confines of the organization right now..... dont know for how long.
And what if your better judgment and compassion leads you to disagree with scripture? For instance, what would you say to a male JW who is homosexual? Would you treat said person as Apostle Paul would, would you treat them as a physical abnormality - unnatural, unclean, or would you treat them as a fellow human being with respect?
The fact is, that the WTS has no reasonable policy toward homosexuals. Neither does the Apostle Paul in his advice to the first-Century congregations. So where does that leave you? Do you also think that Paul's feelings about women is justified? Do you think that Eve sinning first justifies putting them in a subordinate position in the congregation? Why do you think it is better for the organization to be patriarchal?
-
Arthur
But this wasn't such a bad example 5 to 8 years ago. It was the a supported explaination of truth. If we are going to examine the organization by what they said and what is true, shouldn't we examine science using the same standards?
The careful examination of scientific findings is always taking place within the scientific community itself. In the area of science; particularly evolutionary biology; research findings and claims are placed under enormous scrutiny. No one is allowed to half-ass their research. If they do; they will promptly be exposed by their counterparts at other universities who are only too eager to point out discrpencies. Charlatans and hucksters are very quicly exposed and publicly ridiculed.
A common myth is that most in the scientific community always approach their research through a pre-established bias against religion or the Bible. However, to many in the sceintific community; the Bible is an irrelevant side issue that has no bearing upon their chosen fields. In the case of evolutionary biology; such sentiments even if held by the researcher are really a moot point. Their findings must still stand up to the careful scrutiny of other scientists in their field. If researchers are making knee-jerk assumptions about their findings based upon personal bias; they will prompty be exposed and perhaps even be made a laughing-stock.
This kind of verification and scrutiny does not take place in the JW world. JWs are continuously taught to avoid an "independent spirit", "independent thinking", and "worldy reasoning". This is the very process of contempt prior to investigation that keeps people in ingnorance.