Posts by defender of truth

12

Anybody know what happened in this lawsuit, Frank Otuo suing the WT of Britain and an elder for defamation?

by AndersonsInfo in

this lawsuit was discussed on jwn five months ago: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/284881/brave-ex-elder-sues-over-defamation-over-fraud-claims?size=20&page=2 .

anybody know what the present disposition is in this case?.

the following link is to the actual newspaper article: .

defender of truth

Barbara, important PM for you, if you're reading this..

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.

defender of truth

Prologos said the following:

"re animal suffering: in the natural world, In predation, the animal would be dead before the numbing effect of the hormones that are triggered by terror wear off."

How would you explain the injustice of allowing countless species to go extinct?

"In all my terror moments, falling 18 feet at age 80, going under a truck with my motorcycle at age 20, even cutting my leg with a saw, and so on, I never felt any initial pain."

Not all animals are killed instantly.
You have only offered a defense for a 'quick kill' scenario.

"The question of the cancerous dog, in the natural world it would be quickly identified and devoured because of it's weakness, before chronic pain would set in."

That is a weak excuse.
If we were to kill everyone with incurable cancer, as soon as they were diagnosed so they did not suffer, would that be a just and loving solution? Especially if you had the power to cure them.
Bear in mind the animal has no choice in the matter.

"Seconds of terror possibly painless,-- to pay for years of joy? a fair bargain."

Many animals do not even get years to live.
Possibly painless?
Depends on the scenario.

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.

defender of truth

Excellent points, Cofty and Viviane.

With regard to Fisherman, let's clear a few things up and then focus on the topic...

'Does not make my money grow' is referring to his oh-so-clever story, he means that reality is as it is, nobody's views, opinions, or comments can change that.
You can only 'know' something if you repeatedly test and verify it as true yourself.
That's why he said 'the answer is know'.
Very clever word play (!)

He clearly enjoys flaunting his intelligience and education by means of word play etc. far more than trying to help those without a great deal of education and busy people (such as most JW's who lurk here sometimes), to think about a subject.

That tells you a lot.

Secondly, "you are not running the USA" is referring to his earlier post where he stated that only the view of good and bad held by the 'one in authority' matters.
If God exists and is the supreme authority, our view of good and bad is irrelevant because he can do whatever he wants.

I addressed that point with the 'God-the mafia boss' video, that he declined to comment on.
(For those without time to go back and watch it, the basic reasoning is that: just because we have the power to step on an ant, and kill it if we want to, it does not mean we are right to do so.
For believers to claim that God has the right to kill anything he wants to because he made everything, it is comparable to a parent saying they can hit their child or even kill it, because they brought it into the world.
That's an immoral view, as most people alive today would agree.)

Thirdly, this is from his profile..
"The information posted past present and future is to be considered viewpoint, opinion, feeling, believed. It may also be the belief, feeling or opinion of someone else and not necessarily mine or it may be hypothetical or it may be to see how others feel about a certain opinion or position but not intended to be authoritative or factual presentational or factual representational."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/users/11814/Fisherman

At least now,
anyone just joining us has some idea what's going on.
........

Fisherman, what reason can you offer as a justification for God allowing animal suffering before the fall of man?

12

Anybody know what happened in this lawsuit, Frank Otuo suing the WT of Britain and an elder for defamation?

by AndersonsInfo in

this lawsuit was discussed on jwn five months ago: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/284881/brave-ex-elder-sues-over-defamation-over-fraud-claims?size=20&page=2 .

anybody know what the present disposition is in this case?.

the following link is to the actual newspaper article: .

defender of truth

Well done Orphan Crow.

I'm surprised that not many seem interested in this, this case could start a neverending landslide of lawsuits.

If anyone can get there, please report back..

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.

defender of truth

I spend a lot of time thinking of what to post, then writing it in a hopefully clear and understandable manner, and your response is: "Did, running before the fall of man, If it is a fact that pain and suffering existed, make my money grow? My answer is know" ...????

If I could charge you with 'contempt of this thread', I would do so. I'm through with this, you are wasting time and thread space. Don't know why I bothered.

12

Anybody know what happened in this lawsuit, Frank Otuo suing the WT of Britain and an elder for defamation?

by AndersonsInfo in

this lawsuit was discussed on jwn five months ago: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/284881/brave-ex-elder-sues-over-defamation-over-fraud-claims?size=20&page=2 .

anybody know what the present disposition is in this case?.

the following link is to the actual newspaper article: .

defender of truth

No problem, glad to help. Have you done a search via the TrustOnline link? I can't afford it.

91

ABC's report on child abuse

by Joyzabel in

nice job!

defender of truth

ToesUp said:
"At 6:15 they state, "it's not the responsibility of a religious organization to protect children from sexual abuse by other congregation members.
They provide education to parents on the risk of sexual abuse."

'Providing education'
is the only responsibility of the organisation?
Just telling parents what to do in order to protect children, that is all they are able to do?!

Your average JW will likely accept that is all that the organisation can do.
After all, the organisation is basically just a legal structure for a literature printing corporation.
It can't control what anyone does at a local level...

But wait a minute!
What about the Elders that the organisation trains, appoints, and then tells what to do on a daily basis?
Isn't the organisation responsible for what they instruct Elders to do in these cases?

And what kind of education and instructions do they receive from the organisation, regarding child molesters?
'We will tell you who is a predator or not.
And we will tell you whether to call the police, or if you should stay silent.
Listen, obey and be blessed..'

And even with the letters from the Governing Body, or the lack of a legal necessity to report child abuse in the UK and some parts of the US... when it comes to handling such serious matters as the exploitation and harm of children, you would think that an Elder would want to warn their flock and protect them from danger.. not only spiritually, but physically.

Quote from an excellent article on the Mark Sewell case:
" A church [Watchower] spokesman said:...
“The spiritual and physical welfare of Jehovah’s Witnesses is of paramount concern to the elders who have been appointed to ‘shepherd the flock’ ."

Wales Online article

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.

defender of truth

Fisherman:
Can you please just state your point, or maybe take some time out to think on what has been said, and come back with a reply that is actually a response to the question of the topic?

Rather than just picking on parts of others posts and being vague?

You stated earlier that I am ignoring what you were saying about knowledge and belief, but frankly I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make.
People lead busy lives you know, forum discussions seem to be more productive when someone answers a point directly and clearly, not giving vague responses and long stories with no explanation.. then expecting everyone to take the time to work out how their post is relevant.

In my last post, I took a lot of time, and I don't have much to spare, to plan out a response to you.
To help you to see that trying to reconcile animal suffering with a loving and caring God is really a waste of time. Especially when evidence for that God is utterly lacking, in reality.

Everything becomes clearer once you stop wasting your life pondering on theological questions, trying to relate a cold and merciless universe to a loving and personal God who designed it..
a God that I am certain does not exist, based on the evidence available in this thread and throughout natural history.
I was trying to help you, in my own way.

You then pick on the word 'perhaps', seemingly ignoring the context of the post, that shows I am an atheist.
I am certain that a caring God does not exist because there is no evidence of it, at least none that does not fall apart under scrutiny.
Whether an uncaring and impersonal God exists is not the theme of this thread, it's about the concept of people believing in a personal God that they can love, yet ( even if it were to hypothetically exist)
it has allowed, and is allowing animal suffering to continue with no logical justification. So how is that loving or caring?
If you can read from the OP onwards and follow the context of the discussion, you will find that to be the case.

The Bible God (a concept of a divine being based on attributes mentioned in the Bible) is often brought up because millions of people still believe in and worship it, as though their god existed and gave a damn what they do or are going through right now.

Logic cannot be applied until someone defines their belief.
So what kind of God do you believe in?
A God that created all things and cares for the creation?

When I used the word 'perhaps', I spoke in a way someone might speak to a child and say, for example: ''Well, I don't think Santa will be able to bring you an F1 racing car this year, it might not fit down the chimney. Perhaps you need to choose a different present?'...
The parent in the example doesn't want to destroy the child's belief that a Santa Claus exists at this point, but someone needs to tell them that they cannot have what they want, and they need to consider a different option because reality doesn't afford us the power to make everything how we would like things to be. That's life. Santa Claus and Superman don't exist.
I think that my point was clear, seeing as the next two posters understood it.

As to your story, if you had examined the available physical evidence (by measuring the money out in this example) in the first place,
you would have discovered the fact that you did not have the right amount of money. Your own assumptions, as well as your trust in the teller, had led you to the wrong conclusion.
I am guessing that was your point (until you explain yourself clearly), and also you are inferring that atheists are making assumptions.

A person can go on believing that they have a true understanding of reality, and they feel that they 'know' a higher power must exist that cares for his creation, despite all evidence to the contrary. (Like you thought you had the correct amount of money).
That's up to them.
But some of us try to help others to first measure there beliefs, such as a belief in a loving God, against (referring to your illustration)
the 'ruler' of evidence and reason, as the creditor in your story did, because it saves a lot of otherwise wasted time.
Some even throw away their lives because of a belief.

The 'God of love' of the Bible is both internally inconsistent within the Bible, and also with all available physical evidence throughout millions of years.
So he can be verified as not existing, by using logic and the available evidence.

Do you have a response as to why your loving God has either caused or allowed (dependent on your own view of creation) innocent animals to suffer and even to go extinct, long before the so-called 'fall' occurred?

I'll await your response, though I expect just another long story or a quote of one word from my or someone else's post.
In which case, I'm not wasting any more time in replying.

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.

defender of truth

I was replying to what you said to Caedes. Sorry if I was unclear.

Just saying what I thought, I'm not having a go at you.

I'll leave you to think, then.

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.

defender of truth

Fisherman: Perhaps the Bible God does not exist, and the Bible's description of his qualities are nothing more than the imaginings of men who died a very long time ago?

Perhaps the god you believe in did not curse anything after any kind of 'fall' due to any kind of 'sin', and he never designed anything in the first place.

Once you give up fighting to reconcile endless suffering, going back millions of years into the past before anybody had 'sinned', with the concept of a loving and just higher being that designed it all..

Then everything starts to make sense. Don't ignore evidence and logic just because you want to believe something. That's all.