Posts by Bloody Hotdogs!

12

HELP! Can God SEE the future?? How?? Is this predestination??

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

had a very long and frustrating debate last night.. .

jws like to say that god has the ability to foresee the future, but can chose not to look.

this, they claim, removes the problem of predestination/preordination.. .

Bloody Hotdogs!

Hi all. Had a very long and frustrating debate last night.

JWs like to say that God has the ability to foresee the future, but can chose not to look. This, they claim, removes the problem of predestination/preordination.

How does that work??

1. Does God look into a 'crystal ball' of unalterable future events? If so, can it not be said that those events are predestined to occur? If God chooses not to look, what difference does it make?

JWs seem to believe that so long as God doesn't look at his 'crystal ball', no one - not even God - knows the future. But if the ABILITY to foresee absolute future events exists, is the future not absolutely set?

2. Does God simply discern what the future will most probably hold? This is what I try to do when planning for the future, but the events I 'foresee' are by no means absolutely certain. No predestination here.

3. (This is an extension of #2) Does God tell us what He will cause in the future, and then make that prediction happen? Again, this is similar to what I do in my own life, it's just I can never be absolutely certain of my abilities. No predestination here.

What I need to know is what JWs think. Is it option #1? How the heck do they rationalize out of predestination??

Thanks!

PS: I’m an Atheist ex-JW, but I could never wrap my head around this one!

16

I need some assistance!

by Kool Jo in

i just found out that a co-worker of mine is a ex-jw....she's being pressured to go back to the khall...she says everytime she goes to visit her family, they're telling her how jehovah still loves her...blah blah blah...thankfully she has her own apartment!.

i do see how her upbringing in the cult has affected her...she's soft and overly kind, but she's a real sweetheart...the down side: people take advantage of her.. should i tell her that i too am a jw and understands what she's going through with her family or should i just tell her that "spirituality is a personal thing and don't feel guilted into doing something you don't want" ect....the thing is, she talks alot and if i tell her that i'm suppose to be a jw, then the entire workplace will know.... what should i do?

my only aim is to have her not feel guilted in going back...she said her family has been trying to get her back in, but she's resisting it...the other issue, her son stays with her jw sister (she didn't disclose why)...and my co-worker tells me that her son is becoming a "jw convert".. please i need some advice!.

Bloody Hotdogs!

Hey (insert name here). I heard you're having trouble with family due to religious differences. It's sad that this happens in the 21st century! You know, I've had a similar experience. My family is part of a fundamentalist evangelical cult (never mind which one...). They've tried to guilt me into joining/coming back. But you know, I can't bring myself to live that lie - even if it means closer family ties. Living life with as few false ideas as possible is important to me, and probably you too. Do you know what my parent's church teaches? They actually believe in Noah's Flood! My father told me that once upon a time, four thousand years ago, there was a magic floating sky ocean that collapsed onto the earth, killing all life! Can you imagine? Why would I pretend to believe such nonsense at a time when science has proven otherwise? Nope, living that lie is not for me, or you. Don't feel bad, be glad.

2

JW PODCAST THIS TUESDAY

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

jw
friends

fyi: 'the thinking atheist' podcast this week will be on jehovah's witnesses.

should be fun!.

Bloody Hotdogs!

FYI: 'The Thinking Atheist' podcast this week will be on Jehovah's Witnesses. Should be fun!

66

If you were to protest an Assembly what would you put on your placard ?

by Finkelstein in

since this topic of protesting assemblies recently came up, i was wondering .

what would be the some of the most proficient and perhaps strongest message.

to place on a placard to show as the people arrived at the venue.

Bloody Hotdogs!

Jehovah's Witnesses Believe in

MAGIC FLOATING SKY OCEAN

Do You?

Jehovah's Witnesses Believe

MOUNT EVEREST IS 4K YEARS OLD

Do You?

Jehovah's Witnesses Believe

HYPER 'MICRO' EVOLUTION

Do You?

and so forth.....

22

Are JWs creationists?

by Jeffro in

if you believe what is officially stated on the jw website, jws are not creationists.

.

the fact that the exact jw belief is in fact specifically called "day-age creationism" seems to have alluded them.

Bloody Hotdogs!

JWs love to say they're nothing like those crazy Young Earthers. They list two important differences:

1. JWs believe creation took place over much longer time period.

2. JWs don’t push their views politically.

What Witnesses fail to point out, is there really aren’t any other differences.

Young Earthers claim that the earth gets it's appearance of great age from Noah's Flood, which caused: collapse of the 'heavenly ocean', changes in radiation levels, shortened life spans, messed-up radio carbon dating, re-shuffling of continents over a few months, flash ice ages and frozen wooly mammoths, disappearance of dinosaurs, change in human and animal diets, carving of great canyons, rising of mountain ranges, all sedimentary rock layers, sea shells on top of mountains, super fast "micro" evolution, and so on....

Young Earthers also believe in: Noah's arc, angels, demons, God, sin, heaven, Jesus, human sacrifice pleases God, inerrant bible, 6000 years of human existence, nearly all secular ancient world history is a lie, and so on....

This is precisely what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

37

MAYBE THE DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER READ

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif]i was just sent the article "creation declares the glory of god!

i think it might contain the stupidest paragraph i have ever read:.

Bloody Hotdogs!

SBF: "There is absolutely no comfort in science. "

Science gives the comfort of ever increasing accurate knowledge.

I can rest easy knowing that no human sacrifice is required to redeem me.

When I die, I die. Death is not punishment.

I will probably die of old age, not tooth decay at 48 years old.

Religion offers demonstrably false comfort. False comfort is no comfort at all.

37

MAYBE THE DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER READ

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif]i was just sent the article "creation declares the glory of god!

i think it might contain the stupidest paragraph i have ever read:.

Bloody Hotdogs!

I was just sent the article "Creation Declares the Glory of God!" (w04 6/1 pp.9-14). I think it might contain the stupidest paragraph I have ever read:

" Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The psalmist wrote: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”"

"Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study."

Agreed.

"Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork."

Agreed.

" Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny."

Therefore God is "mere theory or guesswork." God by this definition is indistiguoshable from something that does not exist.

"It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific."

My brain has turned to liquid.

"Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”"

(Classic example of quote mining) "Look at those ridiculous scientists with their religious faith! Religious! Faith! See? They're just as bad as us!"

" So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another?"

How long ago was this creationist junk debunked? Has no one told them?

"In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth."

Does this make your blood boil?

170

Proof of Noah's Flood - Presently watching a Documentary about Europe & the Ice Age

by *lost* in

first time i ever heard anyone say there was 'proof' of noah's flood.. very interesting,.

showed a trawler, where the team dredges regularly in the north sea - for animal bones, massive land animal bones, mammoths.. he said, originally, the bones were sent for analysis, and the dr stated, they were proof of noah's flood.. the north sea area was a land mass of dry grazing lands.

and it was very similar to africa.. many bones were found in london, of lions, hippos, etc ... when they were digging out the underground.. .

Bloody Hotdogs!

It seems the documentary was referring to Doggerland. Doggerland is the area now covered by the English Channel and the North Sea. It was once a fertile river basin inhabited by all manor of prehistoric life, including thousands of humans. At the end of the last ice age sea levels rose and submerged Doggerland under about 30m of water. This is in no way "proof" of Noah’s flood, because the submersion was complete by about 8000 years ago, and has never since subsided.

25

Did anyone notice this?? Think: Noah's Arc

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif]the september 2013 awake has this to say about the length of zheng he's treasure ships:.

"historical records from the ming dynasty say that zheng hes treasure ships were amazingly large447 feet (136 m) long and 183 feet (56 m) wide.

Bloody Hotdogs!

The September 2013 Awake has this to say about the length of Zheng He's treasure ships:

"Historical records from the Ming dynasty say that Zheng He’s treasure ships were amazingly large—447 feet (136 m) long and 183 feet (56 m) wide. Scholars find these figures problematic and hard to verify, in that wooden sailing ships in excess of 300 feet (90 m) in length are structurally unsound.

“All indications are that exaggeration has been at work in the accounts that mention the ships’ enormous size,” says one article on the subject. “A ship of about 200-250 ft [60-75 m] would make much more sense than the 450 ft [135 m] one.” Whatever the case, in the 15th century, vessels measuring over 200 feet (60 m) in length were certainly exceptional, and Zheng He’s fleet included up to 62 of them!"

I had been lead to believe that wooden ships 450' long were rather easy to build (a 600 year old man could do it!) and ridiculously seaworthy. But maybe Zheng's big mistake was building his ships with rounded, pressure-resistant ribbed hulls. Everyone knows that perfectly square and flat-bottomed is the way to go.

42

Is it GOOD that God KILLS BABIES??? Help needed in debate

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif]hello all,.

my wife and i are atheists, raised and living as jehovah's witnesses.

Bloody Hotdogs!

Thanks for all your good advice! Wish I could have used more of it, but here's how the conversation went:

My mom came prepared to talk about two specific cases: the death of David’s son and the death of all Egypt's first born.

To the first, she said God had nothing to do with killing David's son. The baby was probably already sick. The words 'and Jehovah dealt a blow to the child so that it took sick' could mean anything, including that God simply allowed it to die of a preexisting condition.

To the second, she said God would never have killed any Egyptian child that had the right heart condition.

To say the least, we had to agreed to disagree. Have you ever heard those arguments applied to these stories?? I hadn't, and am frankly gob smacked. It's an outright denial of the Bible's own account, is it not? There's no way those are the official WT talking points, is there?