Perhaps Finnish authorities should be enlightened that JC's take on criminal matters, such as child sex abuse, etc. Which DOES compete with any other law authority.
EndofMysteries
JoinedPosts by EndofMysteries
-
6
Judicial Committees illegal in Finland, can this apply to USA law??
by EndofMysteries inhttp://yle.fi/uutiset/justice_minister_no_room_for_two_judicial_systems_in_finland/7219841.
according to this story, finland is investigating and claims that only one judicial body is legal, theirs.
so a religion having a judicial system is illegal.
-
-
-
6
Judicial Committees illegal in Finland, can this apply to USA law??
by EndofMysteries inhttp://yle.fi/uutiset/justice_minister_no_room_for_two_judicial_systems_in_finland/7219841.
according to this story, finland is investigating and claims that only one judicial body is legal, theirs.
so a religion having a judicial system is illegal.
-
-
EndofMysteries
http://yle.fi/uutiset/justice_minister_no_room_for_two_judicial_systems_in_finland/7219841
According to this story, Finland is investigating and claims that only one judicial body is legal, theirs. So a religion having a judicial system is illegal. Also interesting the claim that changes so JW's won't hold judicial committees (atleast in Finland) anymore.
-
14
Jehovah's Witnesses to hand over top secret manual to Finland officials
by Watchtower-Free inhttp://yle.fi/uutiset/jehovahs_witnesses_to_hand_over_top_secret_manual/7244267.
16.5.2014 7:00 | updated 16.5.2014 17:10
jehovah's witnesses to hand over top secret manual.
-
-
EndofMysteries
Yea right! SOMEBODY SEND THEM A COPY OF THE SHEPHERD THE FLOCK BOOK INCASE THEY TURNED OVER AN EDITED FAKE COPY REMOVING ANYTHING THEY WOULD HOLD AGAINST THEM! -
52
Why do I suddenly want to start reading JW literature and going to Kingdom Halls?
by yogosans14 inis good calling me back or am i just letting my emotions get the best of me?also i really want to be closer to my jw family.
btw i was never baptized and i consider myself a born again christian i go to a baptist church and wath televangelist and i have expirenced gods presence like never before but sometimes i get fearful and think "what if jws are right and i'm wrong" than i'm screwed!but if there wrong and i'm right it doesn't look to good for them.. i would prefer if nobody posted "god isn't real" type comments.
i truly believe he is real but i respect why some are atheists..
-
-
EndofMysteries
You sound like you have somewhat of a personal relationship with your God. If you join the JW's, then it's "impossible" to get any direct help or involvement from God, you can't understand the bible or anything, you must rely and fully accept what the "governing body" men say. After you have left all friends and family who are not JW and are 100% only around JW's, if you get tired of this or feel it's wrong then leave, then all of them will be required to shun you. -
19
Great article about intelligent design in science without being religious
by EndofMysteries infor those who think that belief or the possibility of intelligent design means you must accept or believe everything or anything you have heard about god or a god is incorrect.
i'll quote one line from the article, " but intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the bible.
design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.
-
-
EndofMysteries
For those who think that belief or the possibility of intelligent design means you must accept or believe everything or anything you have heard about God or a god is incorrect. I'll quote one line from the article, " But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. " Everything taught in all religious could be wrong, that wouldn't negate if life here was the result of intelligent design though. Anyway here is the article, I thought it was a great read.
Not by chance: From bacterial propulsion systems to human DNA, evidence of intelligent design is everywhere
Stephen C. Meyer
National Post of Canada
December 10, 2005Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the December 1, 2005 edition of the National Post of Canada
Original Article
In December 2004 New Mexico Public Television scheduled, advertised and then, under pressure, canceled a documentary explaining the scientific case for a theory of biological origins known as intelligent design.
In the same month, a renowned British philosopher, Antony Flew, made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism, citing among other factors, evidence of intelligent design in the DNA molecule.
Also in December, the ACLU filed suit to prevent a Dover, Penn. school district from informing its students about the theory of intelligent design.
In February, The Wall Street Journal reported that an evolutionary biologist with two doctorates had been punished for publishing a peer-reviewed scientific article making a case for this same theory.
More recently, the Pope, the President of the United States and the Dalai Lama have each weighed in on the subject.
But what is this theory of intelligent design? And why does it arouse such passion and inspire such apparently determined efforts to suppress it?
According to a spate of recent media reports, intelligent design is a new "faith-based" alternative to evolution-an alternative based entirely on religion rather than scientific evidence.
As the story goes, intelligent design is just creationism repackaged by religious fundamentalists in order to circumvent a 1987 Supreme Court prohibition against teaching creationism in the public schools.
Over the last year, many major U.S. newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets have run stories repeating this same trope.
But is it accurate?
As one of the architects of the theory of intelligent design, and the director a research center that supports the work of scientists developing the theory, I know that it isn't.
The modern theory of intelligent design was not developed in response to a legal setback for creationists in 1987. Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon-who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.
In the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, Thaxton and his colleagues first developed the idea that the information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified designing intelligence. Mystery was published in 1984 by a prestigious New York publisher-three years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.
Even as early the 1960s and 70s, physicists had begun to reconsider the design hypothesis. Many were impressed by the discovery that the laws and constants of physics are improbably "finely-tuned" to make life possible. As British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that "a superintellect had monkeyed with physics" for our benefit.
Nevertheless, only the most committed conspiracy theorist could see in these intellectual developments a concealed legal strategy or an attempt to smuggle religion into the classroom.
But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, livings systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.
But why do we say this? What tell-tale signs of intelligence do we see in living organisms?
Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.
Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.
Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.
This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.
Is there a better alternative? Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems, namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter irreducibly complex systems--such as an integrated circuit or an internal combustion engine--and we know how they arose, invariably a designing engineer played a role.
Thus, Behe concludes--based on our knowledge of what it takes to build functionally-integrated complex systems--that intelligent design best explains the origin of molecular machines within cells. Molecular machines appear designed because they were designed.
The strength of Behe's design argument can be judged in part by the response of his critics. After nearly ten years, they have mustered only a vague just-so story about the flagellar motor arising from a simpler subsystem of the motor -a tiny syringe-that is sometimes found in bacteria without the other parts of the flagellar motor present. Unfortunately for advocates of this theory, recent genetic studies show that the syringe arose after the flagellar motor-that if anything the syringe evolved from the motor, not the motor from the syringe.
But consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions--the information--for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.
Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis" according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of "sequence specificity" that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." As Bill Gates has noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
After the early 1960s, further discoveries made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system-an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.
Where did the digital information in the cell come from? And how did the cell's complex information processing system arise? Today these questions lie at the heart of origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly "something else" is at work.
Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, they also argue for design because we know from experience that systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes. The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer-from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "information habitually arises from conscious activity."
This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI's search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals from distant star systems. But closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting--by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts--an intelligent source for the information in DNA.
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information-whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal-always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence.
Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or religion but instead upon recent scientific discoveries and upon standard methods of scientific reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about what happened in the past.
Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.
Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads." -
22
Who exactly is an apostate?
by SonoftheTrinity inif you are a non-believing relative or spouse who is hostile to their doctrine are you an apostate?
if you studied with them and rang the logical fallacy buzzer for chits and giggles to see how they would react does this make you an apostate?.
if you are a born in who never got baptised does this make you an apostate?.
-
-
EndofMysteries
Let me fix this for you.
rs p. 34 Apostasy ***
Definition: Apostasy is abandoning or deserting the worship and service of the watchtower organization, actually a rebellion against the governing body. Some apostates profess to know and serve God but reject teachings or requirements set out in the watchtower by a group false prophets who call themselves the governing body. Others claim to believe the Bible but reject the watchtower organization led by the false governing body. -
7
Accept Jehovah's Discipline
by EndofMysteries inso many times the wt uses a phrase close to that, when they really mean accept the gb's discipline.
with all of these sex abuse cases and other skeletons in the gb closet coming to light, just like king david, perhaps somebody should tell the gb to take their own advice and accept jehovah's discipline as all of their dirty laundry will continue to get exposed and they need to humble themselves.
-
-
EndofMysteries
So many times the WT uses a phrase close to that, when they really mean accept the GB's discipline. With all of these sex abuse cases and other skeletons in the GB closet coming to light, just like King David, perhaps somebody should tell the GB to take their own advice and accept Jehovah's discipline as all of their dirty laundry will continue to get exposed and they need to humble themselves. -
41
What is the basis for authority for the governing body?
by Half banana ina word to jehovahs witnesses: what is the basis for the authority the seven members of the governing body can claim in controlling the lives of eight million followers?
the organisation they represent has never got one useful piece of information correct in one hundred and thirty five years... so why should they be believed?.
-
-
EndofMysteries
There is NONE. But for those who really want to know the true chain of events that lead to the GB authority here is goes.
Russell's time congregations were independent and elected their own elders, etc. People free to belive or not believe Russells teachings. Holy spirt was available to everybody and everybody could learn the bible themselves.
Rutherford took over, he thought he was God himself and his word should be law. He was outraged many challenged his authority. He made claims Christ returned and that since Christ is now ruling, holy spirit is now longer needed. Christ chose the headquarters of the organization, meaning Rutherford himself, and would issue orders through them. IF a person doesn't obey them, they are rejecting Christ and his orders and would die. After Rutherfords 1925 and other failed prophecies, he got real pissed people were leaving and exposing him for a fraud, he made changes to kick out dissenting elders and get more control of elders, congregations, etc.During all this time, NO gb, just Rutherford in full control.
After he died, Knorr took over. Knorr slowly brought back holy spirit and publications ignored Rutherford saying it was done away with and that angels transmit everything or some hidden secret way. Knorr and friend eventually made comments about a GB, and so they had to form one since they talked about it. Also since holy spirit was part of doctrine again, they didn't want to give up power, so holy spirit is back but nobody except them gets it or can understand the bible, because if they tossed rutherfords stuff out the door fully, then anybody can read the bible. So that's how the doctrine got to where it is today.
-
47
Methane-Based Life Forms Could Exist on Titan (the giant moon of Saturn), say Scientists
by abiather inliquid water is a requirement for life on earth.
but in other, much colder worlds, life might exist beyond the bounds of water-based chemistry.
cornell chemical engineers and astronomers offer a template for life that could thrive in a harsh, cold world specifically titan, the giant moon of saturn.
-
-
EndofMysteries
EoM, if by "making a point" you mean "making stuff up", then sure.
Otherwise, you are 100% wrong and have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.Well let me refresh your memory. You ask Abiather a question and he tells you to read a book or google. You then say since he didn't answer the question, he is lying about knowing the answer and just won't admit it. And that it's not nice to do that. Then you deny that you do exactly the same thing.
I'll link the thread below, but here are quotes from you do exactly the same thing. This is a previous convo from us.....
My OP post asking question
EOM: How does expansion fit it to that?
You don't attempt to answer, you just reply with
Viviane: Googles and maths, how does it work?
EOM:I haven't found any really good answer.
Viviane: Then you've not looked very hard.
EOM:then link me what you consider a very good answer and I'll agree or tell you why it's not a really good answer.
Viviane: I'm jot doing the work for you. Read any one of a number of books or watch any; f the science shows on the universe.
EOM:Let me rephrase what you've really been saying the whole thread. "I have no damn idea about this topic, but I want everybody to think I'm really smart because I have a low self esteem, so I'm going to make some smart ass comments telling people to read a book or google so they think I already know the answer and find it simple and then they'll think I'm really smart without me having to do any work!"
Viviane: No need to get upset because you don't know how to use Google and educate yourself.
So in conclusion, you also reply and claim to know things that you don't and don't admit you don't know the answers. If you don't want people to be an ahole and tell you to read a book or google or you think that's not nice, then take a look in the mirror and stop doing it yourself.
-
47
Methane-Based Life Forms Could Exist on Titan (the giant moon of Saturn), say Scientists
by abiather inliquid water is a requirement for life on earth.
but in other, much colder worlds, life might exist beyond the bounds of water-based chemistry.
cornell chemical engineers and astronomers offer a template for life that could thrive in a harsh, cold world specifically titan, the giant moon of saturn.
-
-
EndofMysteries
I've read many books and googled many things. You still are unable to answer the questions. Pretending to know things you don't isn't very nice.
I'm not OP btw, just making a point from your replies in some of my threads. You pretend to know things you don't all the time, then when called out on it, say, "use google or read a basic book because I'm not doing the work for you". So it's funny seeing the karma on this thread.