 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
Its either the JW's or you who didn't properly read the Bible (and I suspect it's the JW's)
Cited from King James' Bible:
The 144000 are Jews.
So, there are more, and
There is also salvation for numerous others. (In many places, early Christianity had a special role for Christians of Jewish origin.) |
Jehovah's Witnesses dont believe that only 144,000 will can be saved.
look here if you want to see for your self.
link
Lets get back on topic please.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
No I don't want a copy. The Watchtower has predicted the end of the world seven times. Last time they decided to predict the end they said it wasn't official. But only because there were getting embarrased about all the other mistakes.
They even postponed that 'unoficial' prediction once. I still didn't notice the world ending the second time either. That was in the 70's.
Unoficial but still in the oficial Watchtower paper.
So now I know why you don't believe in the Trinity. I suspect you will not be on this thread any longer. I have only seen one JW stick it out after the failed predictions are mentioned.
Then there is JW's teaching that its OK to lie to non JW's. They don't like that one mentioned either. Makes them vanish.
I do wonder why they bother recruiting new believers. Since only 144,000 are going to be saved I would think that would be an inherent limit to the number of JW's.
Can you tell I have a particular lack of respect at all for the Watchtower? Any religion that lets children die rather have a transfusion is not one I am going to respect at all. If the adults are that stupid well you have an excelent example there of how evolution works. Letting the children die before they can decide for themselves is unconsionable. |
I don’t really care if you want one or not. Just telling you how to get a copy. If you don’t want to read it, fine. I am not trying to get you to read.
They have not predicted end of the world 7 times. Were do you get this stuff? Never heard of this. The only one I know of is that many in 1970's though that the world was going to end because that there according to the Bible it would have been 6,000 years since the first man was created, but this was never official teaching.
This its ok to lie to non-JW stuff, again were do you get this stuff???
With refusal of blood, they dent refuse all medical treatment first off. They are lots of alternate treatments for blood transfusions. Organ transplants have been done with no blood transfusions.
this is the offical website for Jehovah's Witnesses. Please lets get back on the topic at hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I am very tolerant of beliefs that are different then mine. I suppose there is a possibility that living things evolve, or change over time. But please get facts straight about what other people believe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
Its either the JW's or you who didn't properly read the Bible (and I suspect it's the JW's)
|
I didn't come up with it. Its a Watchtower belief although there are other christian groups that have similar ideas about a fixed limit to the number that will enter heaven.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Jehovah's Witnesses dont believe that only 144,000 will can be saved.
look here if you want to see for your self.
link
Lets get back on topic please. |
How about we get the details right on this though. I may have misunderstood what I read on this.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness3.htm
The Heavenly Kingdom took effect in 1914 with the invisible enthronement of Christ as King. It is currently occupied by a little flock or Anointed Class of about 135,400 people. All were selected after Christ's ascension into heaven at Pentecost (33 CE) and during subsequent centuries. The selection of the full complement of 144,000 was completed in 1935. Some 8,600 are still living on earth. They will spend eternity with God and Christ as spirit creatures. The latter number increases slightly from time to time as anointed but unfaithful members are replaced.
Now since the Heaven and the Heavenly Kingdom are the same to most christians. And I don't see anything about anyothers going to this Heavenly Kingdom ever. And the JW's believe the others will be resurrected apparently on Earth therefor I will stick by what I said although there is more to the JW's beliefs about an afterlife than those that go to Heaven.
Do I have that right? 144,000 go the Heavenly Kingdom and the rest of humanity will either be obliterated in some way or resurrected but not in Heaven.
I think I did pretty good on the original post. You only disagreed with one thing and it appears to be more a matter of interpretation.
OK I will leave it alone after this. On this thread anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I am not trying to get you to read. |
I read other things quite well.
quote:
They have not predicted end of the world 7 times. Were do you get this stuff? Never heard of this. |
Five times officially. In 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and 1941. Plus they implied one in 1975. There was a belief by JW's that the end would come 1994 but that one wasn't even close to official. So I am off by one but barely off. Its six not seven, more like six and half realy.
A page on this by an ex-Witness.
http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/quikhist.htm
However that was not the source I was using. I was using Religious Tolerance.org
quote:
The only one I know of is that many in 1970's though that the world was going to end because that there according to the Bible it would have been 6,000 years since the first man was created, but this was never official teaching. |
That is the implied one. The one I said was postponed once in my original post. I am still pretty sure on the postponement but its in my head I haven't a link unless it is on the site above. I didn't read everything on it as the site is really for JW's.
You haven't heard about the others because your religion is not in the habit of telling all its members everything. Especially the mistakes.
quote:
This its ok to lie to non-JW stuff, again were do you get this stuff??? |
I didn't lie. I don't lie. Lying is for life and death. OK I exaggerate for jokes sometimes. I wasn't making any jokes about the JW's though. I may have made a mistake or two on the details. However its clear I know more about this than you have been told.
My source for that is
http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness.htm
Its a good site for information on all relgions and it isn't in the habit of making things up. If you want you can find links in that article for more information including the official Watchtower site.
Here is the home page for the site I listed above.
The site has been checked by JW's. The errors found were few and far between even when he started the site. Typos mostly. The errors have been corrected. So if you don't know the things on the site you might consider that the information has been deliberatly withheld from you just like the information on the failed predictions about the end of the world.
http://www.beyondjw.com/
quote:
With refusal of blood, they dent refuse all medical treatment first off. They are lots of alternate treatments for blood transfusions. |
I didn't say they refuse all treatment. However some times the only way to save a life is to give a transfusion even with all the techniques that have been devolped soley to aid JW's like hyperbaric chambers for instance.
I don't have a lot of respect the Christian Scientists ideas on medicine either so you needn't feel I am just picking on the JW's.
I was going to then I saw this post. I am sorry you find the truth disturbing but the fact is your religion has predicted the end of the world many times. You may have noticed that you are still around. That means they were wrong. They still feel Armegeddon is coming soon but after embarassing themselves so many times they have simply stopped giving dates.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Lung allready did a good job on the large post by Jack. I said would respond to it today though so I will go ahead and go over it even though he covered it quite well.
quote:
Evolutionists say that various changes inside the nucleus of the cell play their part. And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. It is believed that the particular parts involved in these mutational changes are the genes and chromosomes in sex cells, since mutations in them can be passed along to one’s descendants. |
Not mere belief. Tested and proven in biology labs all across the world. Its important to make this clear. Mutations are real and they are passed on. They are NOT repaired as repaired damage is not a mutation. Not all changes can be repaired. Nor is mutation the only cause of evolution but it is the only way new species can be formed.
quote:
2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia. |
Such a great source. Its for kids not science. Its not authoritative and I have never seen an encylopedia that wasn't riddeled with simplifications and often just plain wrong information.
quote:
3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.” |
That IS any kind of mutation. Jastrow is not a biologist by the way. In fact few of the people quoted are biologists. Jastrow is a physicist. Asimov was a bio-chemist 50 years ago and never did any research. Sagan was an astronomer. Gliedman is a psychologist.
The quote from Colin Patterson (paleontologist NOT zoologist) is likely from a transcript by an anonomous creationist. From 20 years ago. We DO know about at least some of the master genes NOW. Those are the homeobox genes.
This is a typical mix and match creationist manuever. Take out of context quotes from different people and assemble them as if they were quotes from the Bible.
Considering this person is even using the World Book as a source I think its clear the author knows nothing of science.
quote:
But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time. |
True and what follows in the article is an attempt to claim that it can't happen that way. That is what I will be primarily dealing with.
quote:
The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. |
True as far as it goes. They happen to many cells however as can be seen by how people die from tumors that got started by a mutation. And it ignores the effects of sexual reproduction which increases the chances of mutation.
We are ALL mutatants. We all have changes in our genome.
quote:
As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.” 7 |
Back to kiddy books again. Infrequent on a nucleotide basis. About one a billion. Sounds rare eh? Except that we have 3 billion nucleotides. So that results in three mutations each without taking sexual reproduction into account which increases the error rate.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/ridley-gene.html
quote:
It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.” 9 |
Well each one that is noticable. And the mutations were artificially induced with insects where the high rate of reproduction is offset by an almost equally high death rate.
quote:
But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? |
Not to the dead but they don't count. Only the survivors count. They are ones with the benificial changes. Such changes enhance their rate of reproduction. That means that over time they will replace the inferior genes simply by having more offspring that those with the original version of the gene.
These guys just don't understand the time involved. They are always thinking ONE geration. A gene that gives a mere one percent advantage will take over the gene pool in just 100 generations.
If one individual in ten dies from bad mutations then even a thousand bad to one good that means one individual in 10,000 has a gene that is good. It doesn't take long for that good gene to become the one that every individual has.
quote:
Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down? |
Well since we aren't talking about such a procedure the question has no meaning. The dead don't contribute to the next generation so they aren't tearing anything down in a species.
Its unfortunate for the dead but that is only one individual.
quote:
Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new. |
Notice how that claim is only the authors. Nothing at all to support it. Not suprising since its false.
This another thing that shows the author is just plain ignorant about genetics.
Variations can lead to NEW traits. How? Genes get copied twice sometimes. Whole chromosomes can be duplicated or even lost. What that means is that there are two copies of the same gene. Sometimes that will help by causing an increase in the production of a specific protein. Normally that would be neither harmfull nor benificial.
The key though is that it means ONE copy can be retained to produce the needed original protein. The other copy is then free to change as long as the change isn't very bad the original will still be doing the needed job. The extra copy can change to do something entirely new over time.
In PC terms its feature creep. Doubling of genes allows new features to evolve without losing the old ones.
Much of the rest is just attempt to claim examples of real evolution aren't even though they are. It the usual KIND dodge. Odd for an old earth creationist to go that route. I guess he simply doesn't understand what an old earth really means. Billions of years is what it means. Billions of generations not just one.
quote:
The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would. |
Thats an example of the obfuscation. They DID turn into something else. They became entirely new kinds of finches. KIND is just a dodge. The real world and evolutionary theory deals with species. Once the ancestors of finches weren't birds.
Jack I pointed the flying squirel out to you TWICE now. You have completely evaded it twice. Clearly you can't handle it. It is changing KIND. It is going from a non-flyer to a flyer.
You ask question and you get answers. You have consistently evaded dealing with answers especially if you don't like them because the clearly show you wrong.
How about THIS time you say something about the squirells?
What you have doing is evading the truth and pleading that we become ignorant of science since it is inconvenient. We ask for proof and you give a page of obfuscation, out of context quotes, usupported conclusions, claims of ignorance based on old sources, and the use of encyclopedias as a major source like a kid in elementary school.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Not anther double post!!!!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
First off, Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be prefect and freely admit their mistakes. Members have sometimes though the end was near, but was never official teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Blood transfusions are not without risks. And because of this there are many who do not want blood transfusions because of this. I think Ethelred that you have missunderstood the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, but cant really tell for sure.
I wont deny that living things change. I also have not tried to evade the flying squirrels issue. There are many things that I have hard time believing could have happened. How could self-reproducing molecules become "alive?" How could they become some sort of DNA then to cell? Also even if the mutations occurred over a long period of time or all at once, how could they have all by chance get the right mutations to produce life as we know it today, to me it seems that natural selection would only weed out bad mutations and even this would not be make it a sure thing. This seems impossible, the odds too great. Seems more reasonable to me that life was created, not that it somehow happened on its own. In addition, there are the physical laws of the Universe, were did these come form? Many scientists think that someone was behind these laws, but I will note most of them are not biologists. When the Universe was at single point of infinite density, were did the energy come from to get the Universe to start to expand, and to be still expanding today? The Universe is also highly organized, lots of energy was needed to put the Universe and all the matter into this state, were did it come form? To me the most reasonable answer would be that a creator is behind it.
Times like this is were I wish I was a biologist, then I could research this subject on my own and look at the evidence directly, instead of having to really on other people. Each day I can see even more clearly that, I have still a lot to learn. I am also going to do some more research into this subject. Well I think that I am done with this subject for now. To really debate this with someone I need to do more research. I am not a biologist; most of my knowledge of science lies in the field of physics, not life sciences. This is not an attempt to evade anything, but I really need to be more prepared and more knowledge when arguing this subject. Knowledge never hurt anyone. Maybe in the future we could start this up again and get someone to judge, like there would be in a real debate. I think that would be neat if we could pull it off.
Bye all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
One more last though, before such a debate is restarted it would be important the each side laid out the basic outline of what they proposed happen. This way both sides are clear on were the other side stands. I can see that there have been missunderstandings of what is the position of the other side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
First off, Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be prefect and freely admit their mistakes. Members have sometimes though the end was near, but was never official teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. |
It was published in official Watchtower works. They have hidden the mistakes from you apparently.
It WAS an official teaching FIVE different times.
Statements made in OFFICIAL Watchtower publications:
1914 "Let us remember that this date limit - A.D. 1914 - must not only witness the completion of the selection and trial and glorification of the entire body of Christ, but it may also witness the purifying of some of that larger company of consecrated believers." {TKIC 364} ["must not" changed to "may not" in {TKIC 1915 ed 364}, the expected events having not happened]
1914 "The 'Time of the End', a period of one hundred and fifteen (115) years, from A.D. 1799 to A.D. 1914, is particularly marked in the Scriptures." {TKIC 1923 ed 23}
1914 "we present proofs that the setting up of the kingdom of God is already begun .. and that the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16: 14) which shall end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership .. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's word." {TIAH 101} [TIAH 1915 ed contains '1915' instead of '1914']
1925 "We understand that the jubilee type began to count in 1575 B.C.; and the 3,500 year period embracing the type must end in 1925.. It follows, then, that the year 1925 will mark the beginning of the restoration of all things lost by Adam's disobedience." {WT Nov 1 1922 346}
1925 "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914" {WT 1924 211}
1925 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." {WT Apr 1 1923 106}
What do you call official Jack? That stuff is in official publications.
quote:
Blood transfusions are not without risks. And because of this there are many who do not want blood transfusions because of this. I think Ethelred that you have missunderstood the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, but cant really tell for sure. |
Risks have nothing to do with and you know it. Its a requirement of your religion on PURELY religious grounds. Dying from loss of blood is not a risk its a reality and many JW's have done that.
I may be misunderstanding some details but I think I am havn't got much wrong. You have yet to show any errors. You have merely asserted I was wrong and as far as I can tell its because you have had the truth hidden from you.
Did you even know about the stuff from 1975 before this Jack? If you didn't why would that have been hidden from you?
quote:
I wont deny that living things change. I also have not tried to evade the flying squirrels issue. |
Well thats the first time you have even acknowledged that I brought it up.
quote:
There are many things that I have hard time believing could have happened. How could self-reproducing molecules become "alive?" |
Life isn't magic its just chemistry. By reproducing itself it becomes alive.
quote:
How could they become some sort of DNA then to cell? |
Not knowing all the answers is not evidence of god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of god. Not when the lack of evidence is wholy understandable due to vast time since life began.
quote:
Also even if the mutations occurred over a long period of time or all at once, how could they have all by chance get the right mutations to produce life as we know it today, |
Shuffle a deck of cards. How the heck did those cards come out exactly that way? Why the odds are staggering. God must have made them come out that way.
Life didn't have to come out the way it did. Like the deck of cards however it came out is how it came out. There was no destiny that we would exist.
You are looking through the wrong end of a telescope.
quote:
to me it seems that natural selection would only weed out bad mutations and even this would not be make it a sure thing. This seems impossible, the odds too great. |
Little is a completely sure thing. It may be that LIFE was a sure thing. No one knows yet. But the life we see today is merely a matter of how things worked out. It could be very different today. If one bollide had not struck Chixiluba 65 million years ago there might be a dinosaur at the keyboard instead of a mammal. There might be no keyboard.
Why do you think you have to be? Its just an accident. The world came out the way it did because it didn't turn out a different way. Just as that shuffled deck of cards.
quote:
Seems more reasonable to me that life was created, not that it somehow happened on its own. In addition, there are the physical laws of the Universe, were did these come form? |
Where did god come from?
You evade that question just as you are again evading the squiralls.
However I allready touched on that one. Mathematic is where it came from perhaps. Perhaps not. One thing is for sure. If the the physical laws did not support life there would be no one around to ask why they don't. Universes without life never notice they are missing life.
There could have a google of universes before this one. This one has life.
quote:
Many scientists think that someone was behind these laws, but I will note most of them are not biologists. |
Many go with the Anthropic priciple. The Universe we live in has laws that support life because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to ask and no one would be around to notice the universe did not support life. Its inherent that a universe with us in it must be able to support life. There is nothing surprising about it.
quote:
When the Universe was at single point of infinite density, were did the energy come from to get the Universe to start to expand, and to be still expanding today? |
No one knows. Inflation theory covers one possible cause, however that theory has problems at present.
quote:
The Universe is also highly organized, lots of energy was needed to put the Universe and all the matter into this state, were did it come form? To me the most reasonable answer would be that a creator is behind it. |
You are mistaken. The univers is highly UNorganized and heavilly chaotic. The major oganizing force in the Universe is gravity. It does it all on its own and there is no need to hypothesize a creator that has even greater organization and zero evidence to support it.
quote:
Times like this is were I wish I was a biologist, then I could research this subject on my own and look at the evidence directly, instead of having to really on other people. |
Well you can but you would have to stop being a JW.
Have YOU ever heard of a JW scientist. I havn't. I don't think there are any. Scientists ask questions and JWs that ask too many questions are ostricized.
quote:
Each day I can see even more clearly that, I have still a lot to learn. I am also going to do some more research into this subject. Well I think that I am done with this subject for now. To really debate this with someone I need to do more research. |
That I do agree with. Its why I gave you the links I did.
quote:
I am not a biologist; most of my knowledge of science lies in the field of physics, not life sciences. This is not an attempt to evade anything, but I really need to be more prepared and more knowledge when arguing this subject. Knowledge never hurt anyone. Maybe in the future we could start this up again and get someone to judge, like there would be in a real debate. I think that would be neat if we could pull it off. |
I am not a biologist. Haven't even taken a course. You can learn by going to the library and the Scientific American is a big help better than the library since science is a moving target.
Learning can be a good thing. Just be prepared to be an ex-JW should you go that route. You will be cut off from every one you know. That is how the JW's hold onto its members even when they have had so many failed prophecies. Its no fun losing your family however it happens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Everyone is on Jack's ignore list. Haven't you noticed that he is JW as in Jack www. His name is no coincidence. He isn't allowed to discuss things with us if is unable to persuade us. You see if you are not a JW you're a minion of Satan and will be killed in the soon to coming Armeggedon. Thats the whole human race.
Did you notice that he claimed I didn't understand but he didn't actualy show what the truth was? Thats because I TOLD the truth and he was uncomfortable with it.
Don't feel like he was just ignoring you anyway. He never answered my questions either. He evaded them every time.
I AM on Zelots ignore list. Officially. I replied to him anyway because I don't like letting nonsense go just because he doesn't want to hear the truth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Everyone is on Jack's ignore list. Haven't you noticed that he is JW as in Jack www. His name is no coincidence. He isn't allowed to discuss things with us if is unable to persuade us. You see if you are not a JW you're a minion of Satan and will be killed in the soon to coming Armeggedon. Thats the whole human race.
Did you notice that he claimed I didn't understand but he didn't actualy show what the truth was? Thats because I TOLD the truth and he was uncomfortable with it.
Don't feel like he was just ignoring you anyway. He never answered my questions either. He evaded them every time.
I AM on Zelots ignore list. Officially. I replied to him anyway because I don't like letting nonsense go just because he doesn't want to hear the truth. |
I clearly see you hate Jehovah's Witnesses very much. You have turned this thread form a debate on weather or not life was created in how wrong religion, and then into how wrong Jehovah's Witnesses are. No one is on my ignore list. I have just been spending most of my time replying to what you have said Ethelred. I said that you misunderstood what I said.
I have no problems discussing things with people. I knew very well that I would most likely not be able to change any of your guy’s minds, and that was not my intent. I just wanted to share some of my thoughts on the subject and present some info that maybe you guys never looked at. My name I just picked it, and has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses.
Part of the reason that I have not responded to all the posts is because I don’t have time to go through all the posts before more stuff gets posted. I am going to school and have a busy life.
Nothing was hidden form me. Like I said Jehovah's Witnesses don’t claim to be perfect and admit their mistakes and do not hide anything.
You make it seem that lots and lots of people have died because they have not accepted blood transfusions. That parents of Jehovah's Witnesses are cruel because they allow their children to die because they refuse blood transfusions.
Right now I don’t have time to go into this more because I am hungry and need to get something to eat, but before I make my last post in this thread I will go over the things you have gotten wrong about Jehovah's Witnesses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I clearly see you hate Jehovah's Witnesses very much. You have turned this thread form a debate on weather or not life was created in how wrong religion, and then into how wrong Jehovah's Witnesses are. |
Not hate. Disrespect. Its a lousy religion and it is the one that is into calling all others 'wolfish'. I haven't turned the thread at all. YOU have evaded the questions you have been asked. Even with all that evasion I have written far more on evolution than on anything else anyway.
quote:
No one is on my ignore list. I have just been spending most of my time replying to what you have said Ethelred. I said that you misunderstood what I said. |
You ARE ignoring what we say. I never said you put us on an ignore list just that you were ignoring what we said. You do ignore what we say. You never deal with what we write you always picking a tangent to go onto.
You have now IGNORED the flying squirall three times in a row. Last time you claimed you didn't ignore that and that was the FIRST AND LAST reference you made to it. The only thing you have replied to directly was my ACCURATE remarks about your religion. Even then you only claimed I had misunderstood without trying to clear things up at all.
Since the only thing you respond to is remarks about the JWs then that is what you got.
quote:
I have no problems discussing things with people. I knew very well that I would most likely not be able to change any of your guy’s minds, and that was not my intent. |
You never tried to discuss things. You evaded. You never tried to change minds. Its been made quite clear that you need evidence to do that. Where is some evidence?
quote:
I just wanted to share some of my thoughts on the subject and present some info that maybe you guys never looked at. My name I just picked it, and has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. |
You didn't present anything I haven't seen before. Creationists just keep recycling the same stuff in new packaging.
As for you name. OK I will take your word on that. However you might think about your reasons. My bet its not a coincindence even if it wasn't a conscious decision.
quote:
Part of the reason that I have not responded to all the posts is because I don’t have time to go through all the posts before more stuff gets posted. I am going to school and have a busy life.
Nothing was hidden form me. Like I said Jehovah's Witnesses don’t claim to be perfect and admit their mistakes and do not hide anything. |
Then you do know about the many false prophecies. How do you manage to keep with a religion that keeps blowing it and showing that it is not the one true way?
quote:
You make it seem that lots and lots of people have died because they have not accepted blood transfusions. |
One child is one too many. I note that again you don't like what I say but you can't deny that it was true. If you don't like the truth being told perhaps you should quit the religion.
quote:
That parents of Jehovah's Witnesses are cruel because they allow their children to die because they refuse blood transfusions. |
I never said cruel. I said its wrong. It is wrong. Causing death except in self-defense is wrong.
quote:
Right now I don’t have time to go into this more because I am hungry and need to get something to eat, but before I make my last post in this thread I will go over the things you have gotten wrong about Jehovah's Witnesses. |
Please do. Show evidence. Give support. I supported EVERYTHING I said. You have merely expressed discontent. If you don't like the truth its time to go somewhere else than remain in a religion that you don't really respect. If you feel the truth sounds bad maybe it is a sign that you are in need of another way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
It was published in official Watchtower works. They have hidden the mistakes from you apparently.
It WAS an official teaching FIVE different times.
Statements made in OFFICIAL Watchtower publications:
1914 "Let us remember that this date limit - A.D. 1914 - must not only witness the completion of the selection and trial and glorification of the entire body of Christ, but it may also witness the purifying of some of that larger company of consecrated believers." {TKIC 364} ["must not" changed to "may not" in {TKIC 1915 ed 364}, the expected events having not happened]
1914 "The 'Time of the End', a period of one hundred and fifteen (115) years, from A.D. 1799 to A.D. 1914, is particularly marked in the Scriptures." {TKIC 1923 ed 23}
1914 "we present proofs that the setting up of the kingdom of God is already begun .. and that the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16: 14) which shall end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership .. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's word." {TIAH 101} [TIAH 1915 ed contains '1915' instead of '1914']
1925 "We understand that the jubilee type began to count in 1575 B.C.; and the 3,500 year period embracing the type must end in 1925.. It follows, then, that the year 1925 will mark the beginning of the restoration of all things lost by Adam's disobedience." {WT Nov 1 1922 346}
1925 "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914" {WT 1924 211}
1925 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." {WT Apr 1 1923 106}
What do you call official Jack? That stuff is in official publications.
Risks have nothing to do with and you know it. Its a requirement of your religion on PURELY religious grounds. Dying from loss of blood is not a risk its a reality and many JW's have done that.
I may be misunderstanding some details but I think I am havn't got much wrong. You have yet to show any errors. You have merely asserted I was wrong and as far as I can tell its because you have had the truth hidden from you.
Did you even know about the stuff from 1975 before this Jack? If you didn't why would that have been hidden from you?
Well thats the first time you have even acknowledged that I brought it up.
Life isn't magic its just chemistry. By reproducing itself it becomes alive.
Not knowing all the answers is not evidence of god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of god. Not when the lack of evidence is wholy understandable due to vast time since life began.
Shuffle a deck of cards. How the heck did those cards come out exactly that way? Why the odds are staggering. God must have made them come out that way.
Life didn't have to come out the way it did. Like the deck of cards however it came out is how it came out. There was no destiny that we would exist.
You are looking through the wrong end of a telescope.
Little is a completely sure thing. It may be that LIFE was a sure thing. No one knows yet. But the life we see today is merely a matter of how things worked out. It could be very different today. If one bollide had not struck Chixiluba 65 million years ago there might be a dinosaur at the keyboard instead of a mammal. There might be no keyboard.
Why do you think you have to be? Its just an accident. The world came out the way it did because it didn't turn out a different way. Just as that shuffled deck of cards.
Where did god come from?
You evade that question just as you are again evading the squiralls.
However I allready touched on that one. Mathematic is where it came from perhaps. Perhaps not. One thing is for sure. If the the physical laws did not support life there would be no one around to ask why they don't. Universes without life never notice they are missing life.
There could have a google of universes before this one. This one has life.
Many go with the Anthropic priciple. The Universe we live in has laws that support life because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to ask and no one would be around to notice the universe did not support life. Its inherent that a universe with us in it must be able to support life. There is nothing surprising about it.
No one knows. Inflation theory covers one possible cause, however that theory has problems at present.
You are mistaken. The univers is highly UNorganized and heavilly chaotic. The major oganizing force in the Universe is gravity. It does it all on its own and there is no need to hypothesize a creator that has even greater organization and zero evidence to support it.
Well you can but you would have to stop being a JW.
Have YOU ever heard of a JW scientist. I havn't. I don't think there are any. Scientists ask questions and JWs that ask too many questions are ostricized.
That I do agree with. Its why I gave you the links I did.
I am not a biologist. Haven't even taken a course. You can learn by going to the library and the Scientific American is a big help better than the library since science is a moving target.
Learning can be a good thing. Just be prepared to be an ex-JW should you go that route. You will be cut off from every one you know. That is how the JW's hold onto its members even when they have had so many failed prophecies. Its no fun losing your family however it happens. |
Jehovah's Witnesses hold that 1914 marked the beginning if God's Kingdom and will soon put his rule here on the Earth. The 144,000 refers to those that will rule in heaven, but Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is also great crowd, which we live here on the earth. I posted a link above but I don’t know if you read it. Here is anther link to look at.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_06.htm
With blood, I was trying to say that people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses don’t want blood transfusions because of the risks involved. That is what I was trying to say, sorry for not being clear on this. I don’t know if you believe me when I say that there has been organ transplants with out blood. One case I read was in the Los Angeles Times, Jul 20, 1999, "'Bloodless' Transplant Saves Life."
You can look it up on www.latimes.com, but you have to pay for it. There are also many other treatments too.
Here is some info you can look at yourself.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/h...=article_07.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/h...=article_06.htm
The Bible says that God had no beginning that he has always existed. http://www.watchtower.org/library/r...=article_01.htm
Jehovah's Witnesses don’t discourage anyone form asking questions and answering those questions. This is my own personal experience. I have also not been afarid to answer people's questions when they ask me, and have done so. There are Jehovah Witnesses that come form all backgrounds and areas of life. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who are scientist. I know one personally that is a chemical engineer and use to believe that there was no God, and upheld this believe for a long time.
Like I said it was just some thoughts I had, and I want to do some research too show what I am saying has some support. I don’t know how much you know about science, but I have been studying physics for a year now, and plan on doing more study in this field. I know that there are many things that you don’t know about science, and how can you be sure gravity could organize the Universe? I could go into more detail, but before I do I want to back up what I say and make myself more knowledgeable in the subject. I am not afraid of what the facts will reveal, and why should I?
I would like to let you know that I do have access to database of scientific journals through the collage I go to. You seem to be very bias. I am willing to have an open mind when looking at the evidence, the facts; I ask if you truly are. In science you have to be objective and put your own personal feelings aside so that one can come to a correct conclusion based on the evidence. It sounds to me that you had a bad experience with Jehovah's Witnesses or something like that. But as I said I am tolerant of other people's views and beliefs.
Last edited by Jack_www on 13-04-2002 at 03:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
One of the reasons why I also posted in this thread, is that I enjoy talking about this stuff and having and intelligent and stimulating disscusion. Why most people be so hostile? One thing we can all argee on I hope is that hating anther person for any reason, especially for the beliefs they hold is wrong. History is filled with many examples of this. It one of the very sad chapters in human history, and I dont think anyone here wants to be any part of that. Since we are getting no were, lets just agree to disagree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Anther thing I want to do is to be clear on how you stand on evolution and how you say it happened. Many times you said that I have gotten it wrong, so please tell me how you view it as happening. If you would like I will go over this thread and try to respon to as many as the questions that have been raised as I can, I will try to address all the questions people have asked me so far. I will try and spend this weekend doing that, ok? I dont want to evade anything. I am not affarid of questions and answering them. I am sorry for ignoring lots of peoples posts, I did not mean too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Jehovah's Witnesses hold that 1914 marked the beginning if God's Kingdom and will soon put his rule here on the Earth. |
Thats what they say NOW. Not back then.
In case you havn't noticed we don't have God's Kingdom at all. Soon was in 1914 prior to 1914. They have been saying soon for a LONG time and the ORIGINAL date was specificly 1914, then another year and another a total of five times since the first failure.
I did ask for evidence not the present evasions. Post a quote from BEFORE 1914. The original version not the versions that were changed after 1914.
They made a prediction. They were sure. It was in official Watchtower publications. I posted some of them. Show what is wrong with them. With a real quote from 1914 or better yet earlier.
quote:
The 144,000 refers to those that will rule in heaven, but Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is also great crowd, which we live here on the earth. I posted a link above but I don’t know if you read it. |
In case you didn't notice it I COMMENTED ON THAT allready. I also noted that it in no way shows any mistake in my original remark. Its still only 144,000 going to heaven now isn't it? The rest get to stay here on Earth with the 5 billion corpses from Armageddon. Of course the 5 billion number is based on the so far wrong idea that Armegeddon is just around the corner.
quote:
I don’t know if you believe me when I say that there has been organ transplants with out blood. |
I don't care. You know that has nothing to do with what I said. That innocent children of JW's have died because their parents refused to allow a transfusion on purely religious grounds.
Thats wrong. You can't justify it by bringing in things that aren't at all related.
quote:
The Bible says that God had no beginning that he has always existed. |
Thats nice. It also says there was a worldwide flood covering the highest mountain. That flood never happened. So the Bible is not a accurate source for information on the creator it claims exists.
quote:
Jehovah's Witnesses don’t discourage anyone form asking questions and answering those questions. There are Jehovah Witnesses that come form all backgrounds and areas of life. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who are scientist. I know one personally that is a chemical engineer and use to believe that there was no God, and upheld this believe for a long time. |
I have news for you. Chemical engineers are engineers not scientists. My father was a mechanical engineer. He was not a scientist.
Now chemists are often scientists. They are also often simply technicians with a degree in chemistry. Chemistry by the way is probably the safest area in science for fundamentalists. Except for the bio-chemists they can stick to stuff that doesn't touch on their beliefs.
quote:
I don’t know how much you know about science, but I have been studying physics for a year now, and plan on doing more study in this field |
I have one year of college physics. I have read a lot more since but my talents in mathematics are abysmal.
quote:
I know that there are many things that you don’t know about science, and how can you be sure gravity could organize the Universe? I could go into more detail, but before I do I want to back up what I say and make myself more knowledgeable in the subject. I am not afraid of what the facts will reveal, and why should I? |
I can be reasonably sure that gravity is the main organizing force in the unverse. Its the only long range attactive force and its attraction that organizes things. Neither I nor do most astro-physicists see any reason to think there is some mysterious creator messing around with things.
quote:
I would like to let you know that I do have access to database of scientific journals through the collage I go to. You seem to be very bias. |
You seem to think that disagreeing with you constitutes bias. I am still waiting to see something resembling evidence from you. I am biased towards the provable and the supported. You don't have any support so I suppose it looks like a bias to you.
quote:
I am willing to have an open mind when looking at the evidence, the facts; I ask if you truly are. In science you have to be objective and put your own personal feelings aside so that one can come to a correct conclusion based on the evidence. |
I agree. I am going on evidence. You aren't. My mind is open to EVIDENCE and reason. I haven't seen any evidence to support your positions. The creationists reason I have seen here is exceedingly flawed and you have not dealt with any rebuttal I have given. If there is no evidence and the logic is bad then it is not a sign of a closed mind to disagree with you.
Its a sign of a reasoning mind.
quote:
It sounds to me that you had a bad experience with Jehovah's Witnesses or something like that. But as I said I am tolerant of other people's views and beliefs. |
I have had nearly no experiences whith JW's. They don't associate much with agnositics you know. I simply have learned enough about them over time that I don't see one good reason to like the religion.
In fact the sites I looked at the past two days lowered my allready bottom of the basement thoughts regarding them.
I could post the stuff about lying to non-believers. So far you have expressed a dislike with what I have said but you haven't showed any errors.
Remember EVIDENCE. Pleas without evidence and bad logic is not going to sway me in any way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Why most people be so hostile? One thing we can all argee on I hope is that hating anther person for any reason, especially for the beliefs they hold is wrong. |
How about I post some of the JW beliefs about non-believers. I love those tolerant remarks about 'wolfish' governments. Armegeddon is marvelously tolerant. With no one but JW's left alive then there won't be anyone to call satanic anymore.
I would like to commend you on your still being around. Your only the second JW to hang around after seeing the failed prophecies mentioned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Anther thing I want to do is to be clear on how you stand on evolution and how you say it happened. Many times you said that I have gotten it wrong, so please tell me how you view it as happening. |
I pointed out what was wrong. I gave links. I said what I think is happening. This is evidence that you don't really look at what I write. Except the stuff on the JW's.
If you want to go over particular things say what they are.
Not having enough time is a fully understandable reason for not dealing with everything. So stop trying. Only deal with what you feel you really must.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I just hope we can now focus on the issue at hand, weather or not evolution brougth life about, or was it created. I know I cant change your mind about religion, or Jehovah's Witnesses. So I will just let this be, is that ok with you? I would really like to focus on this subject. I hope at least with me Ethelred you have no hard feelings, even though you dont agree with me. I dont want to have any hard feelings with you, ok?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I just wanted to share some thoughts I have after spending some time going over objections people have to idea of creator.
Those that support this idea point to how complex life is, and how great odds are in occurring by chance and say because of this they believe that life was designed by someone Intelligent.
Others who oppose this view, say that first off that they really dont give a on theory on how life was created, in there view there is no way to test such ideas. They say the with theory of evolution model, that this can be tested by scientific method. They contend that they can observe it, and have showed how different genes could mutate to change the structure of living things and other proceses they say are involved in evolution.
Would you guys say this is correct statement?
Last edited by Jack_www on 13-04-2002 at 11:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I just hope we can now focus on the issue at hand, weather or not evolution brougth life about, or was it created. |
You still don't understand evolution so no wonder you can't believe in it.
Evolution does NOT create life. Evolution is a change IN life. You can't have evolution till you have life. Biogenisis precedes evolution.
quote:
I know I cant change your mind about religion, or Jehovah's Witnesses. |
Well if you had any evidence to support you would have chance.
quote:
So I will just let this be, is that ok with you? I would really like to focus on this subject. I hope at least with me Ethelred you have no hard feelings, even though you dont agree with me. I dont want to have any hard feelings with you, ok? |
Fine by me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2002 00:37
Please clarify.
|