by AGuest 53 Replies latest jw friends

  • just n from bethel
    just n from bethel

    Yeah - You are so right about the Dawkins crusaders. I'm pretty sure I'll never be one.

    As for analyzing scientific conlcusions - I'm always happy that the method and process always take us deeper into matters. If it turns out the NASA scientists deemed their findings prematurely, then so be it. That's great. The method is what allowed their original ideas to be overturned. I honestly don't know enough about the whole NASA ordeal (nor do I really care). However, I have been to Mono Lake and that place does look like it could inhabit alien life - how's that for a scientific observation?

  • AGuest
    taking away the Adam and Eve story takes away the rationale for the messiah

    As the "savior" yes, dear Nick (again, peace to you!)... which is what most tend to think of when they hear the word "messiah." For me, it means "chosen/anointed one." I believe, therefore, that he still would have been appointed/chosen... anointed... to be king over the physical realm... and thus, mankind... including Adham. I mean, he was "Prince of princes," even long before Adham ever sinned. It was just in the spirit realm. Where he had his early authority. Now, ALL authority has been given him... in heaven AND on earth (get that? ). And not because of Adham's sin. Because he would STILL have inherited the kingdom... at some point. Because he is the SON. Adham's sin only created a situation where what Adham lost had to be repurchased. Had Adham not sold his progeny FOR his sin... there would have been nothing TO buy back... and thus, no need for a savior. My Lord would have simply inherited the kingdom... as God's chosen One (messiah)... when the time for him to do so arrived.

    So, no... no need for a savior... but he still would have been Prince... even over the prince that would have been Adham... and any subsequent princes arising from Adham's offspring.

    Which is why you used the expression "Uh-Oh" - nobody uses that when they think something is wrong or bad.

    You mistake what I thought was "bad" here, dear JIFB (and peace to you, as well). I don't have a problem with science and if you've read some of my posts you would see that. I was referring to the "mistake" made by NASA... due to the imperfection of man. They got everyone all up in arms over a forthcoming "announcement" as to potential life on other planets (which I personally don't dispute and would LOVE for science to prove it!)... but their experiments may not show that at all. The "uh-oh" was that they GOT everyone all "twitterpated," as I said... apparently prior to a full peer review... which would have shown that perhaps the experiment was flawed. I am sure you would agree, they've made... a mistake. I said "uh-oh"... to show, that like those who make similar announcements on behalf of religion... humans... are "human." That was it and was all. Neither religion NOR science is "perfect" because, as I stated, both are at the mercy of earthling man. I said "uh-oh" because... like religion... there are things touted by science as "true" today... but really is NOT true, and so is not "true" tomorrow. Like "new light."

    Yes, science can absolutely be refuted. So can religious beliefs which are supposedly premised on what's written in books... that is not. Or not... but is. A whole of lot of religious people base their "faith" on what they THINK is written... when it not at all. As I stated, I don't put more faith in religion than I do in science. But I DO put more faith in Christ the Holy Spirit than I do in science. And in religion.

    What the article really shows is the process of discovery.

    Indeed. Which "process" NASA seems to have overlooked. Funny thing: knowing God has a process, too, which many... including many who profess to believe I Him... overlook. I personally see no difference. In science, you put things through a series of "tests" that prove a theory/hypothesis. With God... you put things through Christ... which proves His existence. Again, I see no difference. I respect science's process; however, I do not expect science to respect God's. That's because science is limited to the physical realm. God... is not. Sorry.

    (Oh, and the WTBTS calls that "process of discovery"... tacking.)

    If you were to use this process to examine what you think are visions or voices from your lord, and the process presented extensive evidence that you were only experiencing effects of a medical condition - you would refuse to believe it.

    No, actually, I would believe it, if such process presented such evidence. Problem is, this process wouldn't prove what you believe here... OR what I believe. Why? Because to prove what I believe is a different process. Now, if you were to use the process I have shared to examine what I know to be visions from... and the voice of my Lord... and the process presented "extensive evidence", albeit evidence of a SPIRITUAL nature and not a physical one... but such that you realized I did NOT have a medical condition... you would still refuse to believe IT. Again, I see no difference. What I see is that you wish me to use YOUR process to prove MY belief... but won't consider using MY process to prove it. You want to accuse ME of being "closed-minded" as to your process... but seems to me that you are JUST as closed-minded to mine. Yes?

    However, you, along with countless other believers in personal revelations... will likely never use a scientific method to prove it's not a medical condition.

    Actually, you're a little off there. Science recently proved (well, in the last 10 years) something I've shared here before: how the creation came into existence. I posted that about 4-5 months ago. No one wanted to "go there" with me, though. No one said a thing. Not one thing.

    But what I see - is that religous believers of all sort, love to jump up and shout anytime a scientific theory or discovery is later changed or shown to be incorrect.

    Obviously, you don't visit this site that much. 'Cause there's a whole lot of atheists who "jump up and shout" every time a religious doctrine is later changed or shown to be incorrect. I personally don't discriminate. Although I don't jump up and shout, per se, I will comment on it. Either way. Science OR religion. Because I am an equal opportunity dissenter... of both, where warranted.

    Of course that's the whole point of the analytical process - and the scientists accept that - even if it proves incorrect something they once deeply believed was correct.

    I agree with that, but I think doing that with religious beliefs poses a problem for the religious: they're accused of "changing" the "truth." Now, that really is what's going on... but that's also true of the science world, too. I mean, if you say it's true today... whether it's science OR religion... and then change it... well, same thing. Either it was true then and isn't now... or it's true now and wasn't then. Whether it be the results of a scientific experiment that is published at the truth... or a religious doctrine based on some interpretation which is touted as the truth. Yes? So, again, I see no difference.

    Now, if science said what it said, acknowledged its errors, and changed it's assumptions... while refraining from pointing the finger at religion... then THAT would be "different," IMHO. But the same thing for religion: if religion believed what it believed/taught what it taught, acknowledged its errors, and changed its understandings... while refraining from pointing the finger at science... again, different.

    But neither do. Which is why I consider BOTH to be rife with hypocrisy and so, as I stated, something I personally want no part of, at least not as a vocal "follower" or believer of the particular pole.

    Hmmm. Maybe it wasn't my fault, after all.

    No, it was your fault, dear Nick - LOLOLOLOL! So go ahead and own it... and apology accepted - LOLOLOLOLOL!

    Peace, to you both!

    A slave of Christ,


  • just n from bethel
    just n from bethel

    " I posted that about 4-5 months ago. No one wanted to "go there" with me, though. No one said a thing. Not one thing."

    I know it's hard to believe, but most people don't follow around a crazy lady that posts nonsensical hallucinations while at the same time trying to come off as someone versed in science. Add to that, reading War and Peace is easier to get through than some of your lengthy posts. Much less, 5000+ of them.

    Look, I wish you no ill will. Really I don't. I know you don't want to seek medical help for your condition. You have some people that know you and see you as harmless, so they're cool with overlooking your symptoms. My initial concern when I read some of your posts, was that some doubting undecided lurkers would read your posts and get concerned that if they were to move on from the JWs, they could possibly end up as batshit crazy as you. Had I not already found my way on my own accord, and instead came here first and saw your posts - I probably would have had second thoughts about moving on from JWs. However I now realize you have exhibted symptoms of your condition while you were a JW.

    So you go on, keep writing about your halluncinations, your supposed literal Jewish heritage, and all your self-created delusions of being persecuted on this board. Pretending thatall this, here on the interweb, is a literal persecution from nonbelievers directed at you will only push you further into your mania. When really, it's about as pathetic as claiming graffiti in a truckstop bathroom is the kind of persecution the LORD, (Praise Baby Jesus Hallelujah, Peace to you) prophesied would come upon you. So go ahead now - read some quotes from Ezekiel in a Samuel Jackson kind of way -shout it out in an internet shout kind of way, to all the scientists, historians, and linguists, who disagree with you and your secondary mind-created persona.

    The only thing more pathetic - is a guy like me actually spending 3 minutes of my life making a reply to someone that desperately needs crazy pills. Because, that silence that you heard when nobody replied to your wanna-go-head-to-head-with-scientists-about-creation post - that silence wasn't a concession. That was more like the silence Jesus gave when being falsely accused. Not answering something that makes no sense, and has no basis, and is so obviously wrong, needs no reply. Which really is what I should've done with this thread. Nonetheless, I've spent 3 going on 4 minutes here now - and I realize I do get at least one benefit. I get some practice and reminders of what it's like trying to talk to my JW friends who still think their beliefs are absolute truth. They never budge, nor reason, nor open themselves up to being wrong. It's good to remind myself what it's like to try and talk with them. So to you , dear Aguest, I wish peace to you hopefully which you'll obtain by seeking medical help, but I also thank you, for this excellent example of what it's like to reason with a deeply deluded JW.

  • Curtains

    I have to admit, aguest, you are sounding very deluded. I have felt like defending you in the past for the sake of your christian friends who seem to care for you a lot but these long rambling posts about your personal conversations with the Lord sound quite strange and uninspiring especially when you try to put your revelations on a par with science.

  • OnTheWayOut
  • Nickolas
    taking away the Adam and Eve story takes away the rationale for the messiah

    As the "savior" yes, dear Nick (again, peace to you!)... which is what most tend to think of when they hear the word "messiah." For me, it means "chosen/anointed one." I believe, therefore, that he still would have been appointed/chosen...

    I will take your long response as a yes, Shelby. In which case you must allow me to tell you why I will not debate the origins of man with you. Be assured it is not out of disrespect or prejudice but because it is so clearly a lose/lose proposition. Your mind is not open to even the tiniest revelation of the nature I offer. That means no matter what I say to you, whatever proof or logic I offer, you will reject it because you just know deep within your heart and soul that it must be either wrong or very clever lies perpetrated by Satan. If I am mistaken and that wall you have constructed around your mind turns out not to be impenatrable and the tiniest thing should happen to get through and cause you to have even the smallest doubt that Adam and Eve were real, there is no telling what you would do, and I will take neither risk nor responsibility for that eventuality.

    As a gently offered aside, if you can discipline yourself to keep your posts to a more manageable length, people will be more inclined to read them. Another modest suggestion is to tone down the rhetoric just a little. I realise it is your trademark of sorts, but it may be having the opposite effect to what you are intending (if what you are intending is to reach out to people). It is never too late to change one's approach.

    I wish you peace and wisdom,


  • AGuest

    One, dear Nick (peace to you!)... and am, admittedly, verbose. Don't know what to do about that as I post what comes out of me. Obviously, there's a lot IN me.

    Second... for you and dear JIFB... I think you overlooked the following:

    BUT... I'm more than willing to listen and learn...
    I don't know the "rules" of argument, per se, or debate, etc., and certainly not as to the scientific forum, but I will try and keep up. I might have questions, however, that will help ME better understand what YOU mean and so I would ask that if I do you accommodate me and answer them, to the best of your ability...

    I am an honest, sincere person, dear one. I know that folks don't come across that so much anymore, but I am out here. I have no agenda and I'm not trying to "trick" anyone... into doing... or believing... anything. I neither closed the door, my mind, my heart... or my eyes. You "offered" and I accepted. I mean, I thought that was what you were doing, truly. I must say that I find it... well, interesting... that you and dear JIFB accuse me of NOT wanting to learn anything other than what I know... yet, when I say, "Okay, then, teach me..." well, turns out you "weren't really serious." This is borne, though, dear one... not as a result of me being afraid that you will change MY beliefs... but you and others being afraid I will change yours.

    That is not what I'm here for, though. I cannot lead anyone to God or draw anyone to Christ. I am only sharing what is "in" ME... that must come out. Whether others hear... or refrain. I don't take issue (as I have been falsely accused) if ones don't agree with me - it is such ones who take issue when I don't agree with them.

    BUT... no worries: I still love you. And I truly appreciate your kind words to... and attempt to get along with... me.

    I remain YOUR servant... and a slave of Christ,


  • jay88

    Okay, then, teach me...


    Is a zealot teachable? or must they be overwhelmed with affliction to hear, and is that very affliction proof that god cares for you, that he is speaking to you.

    Their is nothing wrong with having irritable bowel syndrome for you beliefs, however I have yet to know a person that is privy to diarrhea of speech, become a good listener,....good at rebuttal, but not listening.

  • AGuest
    Is a zealot teachable?

    Well, given the number of atheists who were former believers (i.e., zealots), dear jay (peace to you!)... I would have to say... yeah, some are...

    or must they be overwhelmed with affliction to hear,

    I don't doubt that that was the case for some. Given what I read here, however, some also attribute it to "reason", "clarity", revelation of the falsity surrounding what they formerly believed... I mean, the reasons run the gamut...

    and is that very affliction proof that god cares for you,

    Not necessarily. There are those who belong to God through Christ who are not afflicted at all, and some who don't who are afflicted all their lives...

    that he is speaking to you.

    Which should show that being "afflicted" has absolutely nothing with His speaking to one... and/or such one hearing Him speak (though, if it's not through His Word, Christ, I would personally be suspicious of such a claim...)

    Their is nothing wrong with having irritable bowel syndrome for you beliefs, however I have yet to know a person that is privy to diarrhea of speech, become a good listener...

    Funny... so many book writers... with so much to "say"... and considered "good listener's" as well. Thank goodness YOUR experience isn't the only one folks have...

    good at rebuttal, but not listening.

    How can one be "good" at rebutting... if one hasn't listened? Wouldn't such rebuttals be empty... without merit? If so, then how can one be "good" with such?

    You misunderstand me, dear jay... because of your experiences. Which, again, to me is hypocrisy. No different than religious folk... particularly "christians"... who think they know atheists, what they think and believe... and so won't listen. I offered to listen. Honestly. You suspect my honesty because you don't know me. Because you haven't "listened" to me. Not at all. But, then, that's how hypocrites are: they want others to do things they themselves are not willing to do.

    I bid you peace.

    A slave of Christ,


  • Nickolas

    This is borne, though, dear one... not as a result of me being afraid that you will change MY beliefs... but you and others being afraid I will change yours.

    You are half wrong and half right, Shelby. My beliefs are not based on faith so I have no fear of changing them. I will embrace anything I perceive to be truth based on evidence. If you can provide genuine proof that the Theory of Evolution is wrong and that Adam and Eve were the first of humankind, I will gladly hear it now without the formality of debate (and I will be proud to say "I know her!" when you collect the Nobel Prize for Science.) I have no doubt, however, that you are fearless that I cannot change YOUR beliefs, which is pretty much my point. To have that conversation with you would either be an exercise in frustration for me or would have the consequence of shaking you to the core. No win. You are either absolutely immovable in your faith regardless of the force applied to it or you are foolishly courageous. I care to be involved with neither. I will take my counsel from Luke 9:5.

Share this