Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
The way Jst has demonstrated how the JW's find meaning in the bible is telling here.

You are supposed to skip around from verse to verse and place to place until you find things that seem to match up, like solving a jigsaw puzzle. The sea monsters described in this chapter matches up with the place over here where someone else mentions water and strange creatures. And right after that someone talked about the king and his rule. So you see, put that together and it means that the political structure is drowning in corruption. Clearly they were talking about what we see around us today.  The political system is corrupt isn't it? See how the bible prophesized exactly what would happen? Inspired word of god, indeed. What else could it be?

But the picture on the puzzle box is already supplied by they JW's, who tell you what it all means. If you skip around and find things that seem to match up, in the exact same manner as the JW's but do not already have the picture in mind, you will come up with a different answer to the puzzle. The bible is way too long and complicated to let ordinary people near it without trained specialists.

It drove me nuts, having to seriously pore over the bible and the JW literature for hours, matching up this verse here with that passage there to get some answer that seemed like random nonsense. Getting good at following the instructions and memorizing what verses went with what got approval. Asking honest questions, like how do you know you are supposed to match these particular verses and not some others, did not get a nice response. That is why the JW's give both the questions and the answers. This method rewards rote obedience and punishes independent thought.

The other thing the JW's don't want people to notice is that you could do the exact same thing with any long book. "Scholars" can skip around and match things up and create some pre-established meaning from the Quran, the Gita, the book of Mormon, the TV guide. The one thing they all lack is concrete evidence that their way of skipping around is any different from anyone else's skipping around.

It also helps if you go back and change what you said things meant when reality fails to cooperate.

No, we never said the world would end in 1914, 1975, etc. Any JW literature that says that should be burned. Sorry you misunderstood our clear warnings in the literature that this world was ending, and sold your family business at a loss. What we really said was that Christ would begin to be anointed and pick out his crown, and start to think about ruling in that year. And he did. Can you prove he didn't?  :P

12

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."- Richard P. Feynman

Please don't Fox News Richard Feyman's quote and use it out of context to defend the bible or a god. This quote should actually be the entire basis in which you look at the bible and the idea of a god, evolve from our ancestors ancient ideas on the unverse, and just... Let it go. It literally fails not only scientific experiments, but common sense logic. I've posted the clip in context to alien flying saucers (or gods).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wLaRXYai19A

That's how we also evolve as human beings as well, how we think. This would explain why most millennials are letting go of religion too. No devil, just plain old common sense and honest question and answering.

How's this sites answering helping you out? Is it helping you assist with how to skew others who are asking similar questions such as us in the church and you looking for legal/bible loopholes on how to keep them sheep?

You can't be that dishonest, I don't believe. Disgusting though if it's true.
13
Reviews / Re: Rate the Last Film You Saw
« Last post by Fiji on Today at 04:02:09 PM »
In Revolution, they addressed the ammo issue. Only a handfull of people got to run around with (assault) rifles. All the others were reduced to using muskets. Muskets, you CAN keep supplied in a post apocalyptic world (well, depending on the apocalypse anyway)
14
You talk a lot.

;)

-Nam
15
General Religious Discussion / Re: Bible God/Jesus is a Pervert
« Last post by Nam on Today at 03:56:54 PM »
I've seen bigger.

;)

-Nam
16
This is starting to sound like the Monty Python argument sketch.

How many pages and still no theist has proved the existence of their god. But, since we cannot prove that their own special personal pan thin-crust version of supernatural being does not exist, they all win. Every god exists! &)

This being has qualities like powerful, invisible, eternal, loving, wise,  benevolent, outside of space and time--qualities that can change as needed to remain undetectable. Like, it knows everything but can choose not to know some things. It can do anything, but sometimes decides to remain hidden. And it either communicates directly with people on a regular basis, or it doesn't. Or maybe did communicate directly with people at some point in ancient history, but no longer does. Or maybe it communicates through signs and dreams and obscure writings. Or perhaps not.

Where else in life does that work? Where do you get to make outrageous claims that other people have to disprove or else accept as real? Who gets to say this to their boss at work:

"I did my project better than anyone in the history of this company. With magic. You can't see the project, because it is based on faith. I was helped by my invisible friends, Hans and Lars Nakamura, samurai vikings from the planet Mercury. I offer no proof of any of this, because nothing I show you will convince you anyway. You have to prove I did not do the project with Hans and Lars. Oh, yeah, give me three times the normal salary. To pay Hans and Lars."

I have a live space alien living in my basement who poops out solid gold nuggets.  I am married to a billionaire clone who looks like Denzel Washington and can time travel. I can make myself 70 feet tall in an instant. I am Halle Berry. I don't have to give you any proof of those things. You have to prove they are not true. If you can't, they are all true. So there.   :P

Do they have any clue how nutty they sound?
17
I mainly only start "fights" after the debate has started.

;)

-Nam
18

I read the website. But if you cannot determine HOW those features evolved,
But we can - certain genes control certain characteristics. We can genetically engineer creatures with specific characteristics. We know what genes do.

Quote
then you are most certainly making an assumption that “evolution diddit.” Of course evolution is going to predict that various creatures will have similar structural components and that’s because it assumes Common Descent. Just because those similarities exist does not equal evolution.
You are 300 years out of date:

The physical structures of things, just as we see them, can be misleading. You will know of the mimics that exist in the natural world - they can be deceptive:

http://fcmosher.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10-Insect-Mimics

They look the same, but are not. We need to consider the genes.

Quote
Just because some structural similarities exist (and I’ll throw in DNA similarities too in order to satisfy Foxy) does not mean that an evolutionary process was responsible unless you assume it to be so.
No: we can show that DNA does control structures.

Quote
Now, if there is some scientific evidence which identifies the biological process that produced those similarities in those various creatures, then you have something a little more concrete.
Good! That means we have got it...

If you want to know what genetic mutation does, have a look at


If you can explain how a deity does its magic, it will be very helpful to us. After all, you do not want to be demanding scientific evidence from us and offering none yourself, do you?
19
Dude, despite my in your face attitude, I rarely start arguments/debates. It just seems I do.

-Nam

yes..."argument/debate" is not the same as "fight."  :-)
20

Sigh. I feel like I am going to repeat myself all over again. What you've said here is all find and dandy, jaimehlers, except you are missing one very critical piece --> how can you claim "that variations are passed on to offspring" as the process of evolution that produces new morphological structures when you cannot test to see if that claim actually holds up?


Ask horse breeders, dog breeders, farmers, fishery workers, botonists...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10