Posts by slimboyfat

44

Red Alert - Propaganda is Being Used!!!!!!!!

by The Searcher in

check out the latest watchtower:.

"your defense?

be determined to stick to jehovah’s organization and loyally support the leadership he provides—no matter what imperfections may surface.

slimboyfat

I also find this an interesting comment:

Surely there is ample evidence to show that you can trust the channel that Jehovah has used for nearly a hundred years now to lead us in the way of the truth

Why did they say "nearly a hundred years", when Russell started the movement nearly 150 years ago? I guess it's because of their new "faithful slave" teaching that claims the slave same into existence in 1919 or something like that, and only includes the "governing body", not anointed JWs in general. They say we should trust them because they claim to have been the slave for a hundred years. A more relevant question might be: why trust a "slave" that only figured out who it was and when it came into existence a couple of years ago, and was apparently wrong about its own identity for most of its so-called period of tenure.

44

Red Alert - Propaganda is Being Used!!!!!!!!

by The Searcher in

check out the latest watchtower:.

"your defense?

be determined to stick to jehovah’s organization and loyally support the leadership he provides—no matter what imperfections may surface.

slimboyfat

Not wanting to restart anything, but it's on page 30 as far as I can see, not page 20.

44

Red Alert - Propaganda is Being Used!!!!!!!!

by The Searcher in

check out the latest watchtower:.

"your defense?

be determined to stick to jehovah’s organization and loyally support the leadership he provides—no matter what imperfections may surface.

slimboyfat

Searcher, the minus isn't mine, but bear in mind people can use plus or minus for complicated reasons.

For example, someone who agrees with the point you are making, but is disgusted with the WT quote, may add a minus to the post to express their disgust at the quote in particular. Not saying it makes sense, but I think it can happen.

Of course it could also be a JW who disagrees with the point your are making. But there aren't many of those around here.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

slimboyfat

Yes it is.

Atheists hold two contradictory beliefs at once.

1. That human rationality is a result of natural selection shaped for survival not a God given faculty for seeing the world as it really is.

2. Human rationality can be relied upon to deliver a reliable answer to questions such as "does God exist?"

One or the other assumption has to give.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

slimboyfat

I have come increasingly to the conclusion that ALL significant ideological perspectives on reality are self-refuting when you think about them long and hard. Some contradictions are easier to spot than others, but contradiction appears to be at the heart of pretty much any position you wish to adopt.

scepticism - we can't know anything (including the assertion that "we can't know anything"?)

physicalism - only physical things exist (then what is the statement/thought "only physical things exist"?)

relativism - all viewpoints are equally valid (including the view that there are correct and incorrect viewpoints?)

theism - there is a being who has unlimited power and is perfect in love (how can God be both loving and all-powerful in a world full of suffering?)

naturalism - every event can be explained with reference to the rules of nature (how do you explain the existence of natural laws in the first place without contradicting this premise?)

atheism - I can use logic and reason to show God does not exist (why should human rationality be relied upon if it is purely the result of selection for survival?)

Self-refutation doesn't appear to be an isolated quirk. It seems to be a feature of any ideological position one may wish to adopt.

42

#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?

by EdenOne in

i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

slimboyfat

The JW answer is that while God has the power to see the future, he restricts his exercise of this power in order to leave room for the free will of humans in relation to his purpose. So God wasn't pretending not to know the outcome when he tested people in the Bible. He really doesn't know if any particular individual will serve him faithfully or not until it unfolds.

23

JW's Should Be Banned!

by mr_doubtful in

i'm all for religious freedoms.

i am not for a religious organization demanding freedoms from the government that they in turn take away from their own members.

why should the organization get religious freedom when they take that very thing away from it's members?.

slimboyfat

I guess JWs outside Russia may find the situation interesting, or mildly fortifying. But as for bringing many more people into the JWs, I doubt it.

How about we organise our own letter campaign? Wouldn't it be cool if we could manage thousands of letters to JW headquarters saying:

"Dear Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses,
As former Jehovah's Witnesses we fully support your freedom to worship in Russia and we wish your campaign to protect religious freedom every success. At the same time we wish that your organisation would respect the religious choices of those who have been Jehovah's Witnesses at any time, without seeking to alienate former members from family and friends. As the Awake! magazine said in 2007: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." Please could your organisation begin living up to this principle by discontinuing the practice of shunning former members who make alternative religious choices? Not only is this the right thing to do, but discontinuing such harmful practices may actually help you argue for and secure your religious freedom in Russia and elsewhere.
Yours faithfully,
Former JW members"

23

JW's Should Be Banned!

by mr_doubtful in

i'm all for religious freedoms.

i am not for a religious organization demanding freedoms from the government that they in turn take away from their own members.

why should the organization get religious freedom when they take that very thing away from it's members?.

slimboyfat

It's a myth that JWs grow better under ban. None of the major examples support this idea. There were fewer JWs in Germany at the end of the Third Reich than at the start. And JWs only grew very slowly in the Soviet Union. Only when communism collapsed and JWs were legalised in the 1990s did JWs grow rapidly in Russia and Eastern Europe. Similarly JWs grow better in African countries where they are well tolerated and less so in countries where they have been banned or restricted. So it's a myth that persecution is good for JW growth.

32

Have you ever believed something that turned out to be wrong?

by slimboyfat in

apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.

not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.

a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.

slimboyfat

Rainbow Troll that's an interesting list of beliefs. Why do you think the moon landing never happened?

bohm why was peak oil wrong? It seemed to make sense.

shepherdless I'm not sure about climate change. It might be right in broad outline, but probably wrong in lots of details. There's too much confidence about such things where it's not warranted. Which is not the same as saying right wing anti-science people have got it right.

ILoveTTATT according to David Trobisch the basic idea is that an editor (possibly Polycarp) collected the books of the NT into a canonical edition in the middle of the second century. This was when the divine name was removed and nomina sacra introduced as standard. We don't have any fragments of NT with Kyrios passages from before 150 CE. What we do have is a number of LXX fragments from the period that use the divine name.

32

Have you ever believed something that turned out to be wrong?

by slimboyfat in

apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.

not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.

a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.

slimboyfat

Incidentally you are quite wrong about the possibility of finding early NT manuscripts.

The papyri from Oxyrinchus are only being published very slowly. In recent years fragments of the NT have been published, as well as new fragments of the LXX containing the divine name, including a fragment of Job and a fragment of the Psalms.

This early fragment of the NT published in 2009 for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_125

Job fragment with divine name published in 1983.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_3522

Psalms fragment with divine name published in 2011.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_5101

It's estimated that only 1 or 2% of the total material recovered from Oxyrhynchus has been published so far.

http://www.seeker.com/amateur-archeologists-invited-to-decipher-papyri-1765340100.html

There may be fragments of the NT with the divine name among them.