Sorry for the situation. I think one of the cruelest aspects of JW shunning is that it's never clear cut. It's always a messy mixture of personal and WT policy, so that victims are left wondering where the WT policy stops and the personal dynamic begins. It messes with your head.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
7
Posted 3 months ago "After 15-17 years daughter coming for a visit". No word since.
by James Mixon inthe wife told me it was more like 20-22 years since i seen or talked to her.but since that visit we.
we have not spoke to one another, not a word.
my family members (not jw) ask me have i called.
-
-
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
The WT teaches that life comes from life.
It also says that scientists may succeed in creating life at some point in the future.
Their argument is that this would only go to prove that intelligent life is required to make life. Life can't arise spontaneously.
The WT does not teach there is a "theological barrier" to scientists creating life as Cofty claimed. In fact it says the opposite, that scientists may succeed some day.
See pages 6 and 7:
https://download-a.akamaihd.net/files/media_books/d0/lf_E.pdf
If you don't accept a statement in the WT as proof of what they believe, then what sort of evidence would you accept?
-
11
Another changed WT publication from when it was first published to now
by ILoveTTATT2 inthis is as it was originally, or at least at the time that paul grundy saw it, because he has this picture on jwfacts:.
this is what it says on jwfacts right now:.
watchtower articles on evolution contain a consistent pattern of poor research, such as quotes from both the january and august awake!
-
-
slimboyfat
Yeah the comments from readers section is what I used to read first. In fact it was probably the only part worth reading. Also the news section, sometimes.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
Wrong in saying JWs have a "theological barrier" to scientists ever creating life. Because their own literature says scientists may succeed at some point in the future. If Cofty can't admit a factual mistake as simple as that, what hope is there for more complex or abstract ideas?
-
8
Composition of members of the Watch Tower Society at the annual meeting in 1945
by slimboyfat in.
just came across this info from 1946 yearbook.
it would be fascinating to have the same information on members at this year's annual meeting.
-
-
slimboyfat
Yeah and what's interesting is that some of the votes were proxy. So how did they know their race? Did they fill out a race questionnaire?
The next page is interesting too. It shows that about a third or a quarter of the members in 1945 joined before Russell died. I found that surprising.
By the way this post took over a day to apear. Is it because of the picture? I've not started any other threads for a while, so I don't think it's a backlog.
-
8
Composition of members of the Watch Tower Society at the annual meeting in 1945
by slimboyfat in.
just came across this info from 1946 yearbook.
it would be fascinating to have the same information on members at this year's annual meeting.
-
-
slimboyfat
Just came across this info from 1946 Yearbook. It would be fascinating to have the same information on members at this year's annual meeting.
-
11
Another changed WT publication from when it was first published to now
by ILoveTTATT2 inthis is as it was originally, or at least at the time that paul grundy saw it, because he has this picture on jwfacts:.
this is what it says on jwfacts right now:.
watchtower articles on evolution contain a consistent pattern of poor research, such as quotes from both the january and august awake!
-
-
slimboyfat
Yes it's going to become important to keep physical copies of the material as long as they keep producing it, and keep track of electronic versions and revisions too.
In this case it seems they fixed a factual error in attributing a statement to the wrong author, which is fair enough. On other occasions they cover their tracks in more revealing ways. Such as when they revised comments about 1975 in the truth book after the date passed.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
Viv, I used "computation" in the context of human thought. It was you who applied it to computers.
Anyway, claims of a soul treat it as a thing. Unless you've something or some reason to show it should be treated differently, your trolling is of no value.
If a soul is a thing, it does not need to be a physical thing, in order to be a thing. You are presupposing reductionist materialism, and therefore begging the question. (Yeah, yeah, you will say I'm wrong, I don't know what begging the question is, and I'm dishonest. There I'll save you the bother. Predictably what you won't do is supply any argument or evidence for any assertion you make)Frankly I am doubtful about "souls", but dismissing them on the grounds that they are not material is stupid, because they are not claimed to be material.
Non-physical things do exist, such as numbers and thoughts. The question is not whether non-material things can exist, the question is whether a "soul" is among them or not.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
Yes Ruby, reductionist materialists, I stand corrected.
What's interesting is that some such as Viv who hold to this view, apparently cannot conceive that there are other ways of understanding reality. It's just taken for granted as an article of faith. Viv doesn't show any signs of being aware of alternatives or the problems identified with reductionist materialism.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
Which previous unfinished business do you refer to? The WT saying that scientists may one day create cells, yet Cofty saying JWs teach the opposite? You really want to revisit that? If the statement in the WT saying it might happen one day doesn't satisfy you, what exactly would you accept as proof?
Even a cursory examination of your list exposes all of the flaws with your comparisons. Thoughts, dreams, realisations and disappointements exist physically within your body, they are chemical changes that can be watched and measured.
Yes well that's what materialists claim, of course, that thoughts are identical to the chemical reactions of the brain. There is little doubt that consciousness arises largely from the brain, but that is different than saying a thought is identical to those physical mechanisms. There are more possibilities to explain the complex nature of reality, including consciousness, than materialism or dualism. Materialism is one way of understanding the world, it is not the only way, and it has its problems.
Tallis explains some of the reasons for thinking that consciousness is not identical to reactions in the brain.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-consciousness-is-not