religion is nothing more than a belief system, and as such is something someone holds as a personal truth at the point they decide it is time to push it on others, is in fact the time it becomes a nusence...

So don't be a pain in the ass, keep it to yourself, if you want to explain why you feel the way you do because of a religious belief it does not mean you have to try and stack your deck with your god. leave that at home...


present as you will, but leave the recruitment at home...

So, who is facing possibilities that could very well bring them anything close to meeting their God as they know them or are you all just guessing and puking out the norm?

Know what, my dad and my mom made me and I am going to die and not a thing anyone is going to say is going to change that.
But what people scream and fight about in the courts might very well have a key thing to the reality of my life extending beyond what normal evolution of sickness might lend to.

anyway.....

*sigh*

Iplural, if science told you the Earth was flat, would you believe it?

Just wondering.

If science told me the earth was flat I'd just be wealy-wealy careful about standing close to the edge....

earth aint' flat so start some place else ok?

joetheblow

Do you believe the world is flat and slavery is ok? The Bible says so and according to some studies (scientific mind you) says that people of color are just not smart. I think it was done in the 1940's or something.

The world is a round disc, supported by pillars on the backs of four tortoises

The scientific and observational evidence is effectively overwhelming in favor of the assertion that the earth is an oblate spheroid. The spherical character of the earth was clearly known even as far back as 230 BCE, when the greek philosopher Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth by measuring the angular difference of a noon shadow at summer solstice in Syene and Alexandria. That the earth was a sphere was common knowledge to the greeks even before that.

Slavery is wrong. Period. Even apart from any moral standpoint, one only has to evaluate if they themselves would choose (or accept) being a slave. If the answer is 'no' (which it always is), then the argument against slavery is strong even on that simple argument. When ethics, etc. are brought to bear, there can be no rational assertion for the validity of slavery.

Contrary to the belief of many, the Bible does *NOT* contain an inerrant expression of truth. It is a mixture of recorded oral history, tribal laws and customs, allegories and descriptions of socially acceptable behaviour (within the context of that tribal framework), and various historical and allegorical descriptions of people and events. It has value within that context, and can provide meaningful insight into human behaviour in a societal context. Some of the basic principles are good guidelines for social cohesion and personal behaviour. To take it as the literal truth is IMHO, to miss the point of trying to understand God. Quite a few of the literalists are practicing bibliolatry, the idolization of the bible, and placing it above even God Himself.

As for racial inferiority studies, there are no reputable, peer reviewed studies that indicate anything but that there is no significant difference in human ability based solely on racial characteristics.

Iplural, if science told you the Earth was flat, would you believe it?

If it provided sufficient evidence of that assertion, and if the body of that assertion did not violate the remaining framework that exists based on the reasons such bodies become spherical. As stated above, such evidence does not exist.

Joe, every faced death, I do not mean presumed death I mean right in your face kinda pick and choose, gun to the head, car into a light post, wait and see what your body decides is you vent in life, wait for your body to eat itself kinda thing, and your choice means death or not?

At the point that you tell a doctor to not give your self or your child blood and you or they die you *WILL* find out exactly what you claim is truth or not...

kinda wild how the truth shows its ugly head, only at the end of anything doe sit in fact come about and then all one is left with is to deal with the choices they made leading up to it...

Justice another words...

I hope yours is not eventful and is relaxing to say the least., Mine is by choice wil be spastic and loud...

[Message Edited]

though it wil not be one this site...........

Okay, IPlural your freaking me out!

#1069 by IPlural - 11/6/2003 9:45:03 PM earth ain't' flat so start some place else ok?

Oh yeah??? Its simple, just look outside your window!!

Its all in front of you.

That's my argument.

And if you ever fly in a plane and notice the Earth curvature out the window, CLOSE THE CURTAIN TO THE WINDOW!!!

Don't feed yourself with the lies of this new science. Science has proven for centuries that the Earth is flat.

Sheeesh...



The lieing lies and the lairs who tell those lies are simply lieing.



I am just trying to say that it 'could' be said that a known truth at any point in time can become something else later on.

Even r3fr admits that... finally after like a trillion posts

I don't believe that if you think there is a possibility that you and the information you receive is wrong then you are trapped in time devoid of any chance to grow into the faith you actually chose.


If you don't ask serious questions that can break your beliefs fundamentally every once and a while how do you propose to get to the actual answer?

Religion 'should' be able to withstand mockery....it's 'supposed' to be a devotion to the almighty. If humour at its expense is a threat to its existence/appreciation then as they say 'God help you' [and your religion'. Besides.....everyone knows.... Clapton is God...

Most religions cannot stay up against the mockery.
Clapton? Clapton is good, yes, but very slow at changing his strings.

God designed us with a sense of humour, and it wasn't just so we could laugh at others. If you can't laugh at yourself (and in what you believe), then as Jafo says, 'God help you'.

Maybe so, but he didn't intend people to be mocked. I take what I believe important, not as a joke.

Ok, why doesn't anyone believe me when I say slavery is ok under the Bible??? I can't find the verse, someone help me out here. And as far as the Earth being flat well for thousands of years it was believed to be so and the Church believed it. I do not recall any religion recorded in history who said, "Hey, look at this verse in the Bible is clearly states the Earth is round." I am sure it would have been mentioned because they would have been burned at the stake.

I'm not aware of a scripture that says slavery is ok.

I'm sure it has happened that someone pointed that verse out, but due to the churchs pagan influences and them wanting to be 'current' they ignored the Bible, as they do today. One example is the openly gay bishop.

All of this is from my group of acknowledged people who have concluded this for centuries. They can't be wrong. God wouldn't allow it.

God isn't with wicked men who get their teaching from false religions of from the 'new thing' (trends).

So clearly, the Earth is flat and slavery is allowed. God created everything, steps in to make sure the scripture is correct and is a human looking supreme being. Good. I am glad this is settled. (The person who created this thread must be confused about these issues)

I'm not seeing where you're going from this. I'm confused as well...

So you refuse to actually do any research into the other religions because you feel that they are false?

No, I do know most of the teachings of a lot of religions. Yes, I do believe they are false.

I do not propose that science is the True answer. I use it as a reference and to help make some decisions. The Bible as well also, while to me holds more value, I use as a reference and guide but I do not pretend that I nor my church understand everything in it no matter how much we try.

Then you may agree that there is the possibility that your religion isn't the true one? Don't you think God would help us to see the answers because he wants us to live?

This doctrine of man is misleading. Anyone who disagrees with you is following a doctrine of man? I am sure some Muslims and Jewish people feel the same way.

Yes, they probably do.

Some how God being right translates to a human being right on its interpretation of God's right-ness.

You could be right... This is why we must MUST pray for guidence and do personal study.

Thou Shall not Kill (but its ok when defending yourself??? but I am still killing and so on). Blood eating... (cannibalism? eating people? no blood transfusions???)

Yes, since defending yourself isn't deliberately killing. Its protecting yourself. Defending your family or whatever the case may be.

If you have a church, go to it and ask the pastor where it says blood transfusions are bad and you shouldn't do it. (r3fr, post the Biblical reference to not using blood transfusions)

Acts 15:20 reads: "but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26 are a few others)

what there are other versions of the English translation of the Bible? How is that possible???

Its possible because different people have translated the Bible. They translate it to how they feel it is best. To capture the feeling correctly, as for others, they translate it different to support their beliefs, such as trinity or hellfire.

So there is a point where something was ok IN YOUR RELIGION that was later recalled. But this somehow will not happen anymore because... Why?

Like the congergations of old, false teachings have crept in our congergations. But as time passed, we were enlightened and those teachings are no longer part of our religion. As for today, we've cleansed ourselves of every Babylonish teaching to truly be "no part of this world."

You realize that these are High School biology/chemistry questions, right? It amazes me that you could be so completely unread and still hope to make some sort of argument that would sway anyone. I don't fault you for not knowing, but I think you lack a bit of humility to try and disprove things you have never even bothered to familiarize yourself with. As I suggested earlier, perhaps you should learn something about the topic before you try and debate its value.

Then they should be easy.

Anyway, you have reached the point now that you are ignoring who is on which side. I'm not an Atheist, and like I told you previously, I spent the majority of my time in this silly discussion trying to make Atheists see that Evolution and Creation can co-exist.

If this thread is for athiests, then I must go. Like I said when I first started posting here, I didn't read all the pages (31!).

If I am irritated, it is because people like you and the rest of your cult do more damage to the concept of 'God' and 'Creation' than an army of Atheists could. People go away from discussions like this with no urge to consider religion, because invariably there are a couple of caricatures extolling their own ignorance and condemning everything outside their scope. According to my word count, you spent 2664 words in that last post, and very, very little was regarding Evolution. Please, PLEASE, take off your 'witnessing' hat.

Calling God a 'concept' is not damaging to him?
I'm for creation, not evolution.

If the powers that be wanna keep this train wreck on-topic, please deal with the proselyting that is going on. Cult doctrine just screams for an equally verbose counter-balance. For everyone that posts here, there are many more that read it. On the off chance a single person might be drawn to R3fr's foolishness, someone should prevent this from being a platform. Sorry, I feel strongly about cults.

The only reason you call us a 'cult' is because you've read apostate material. Apostate material is based on hatred. They'll tell lies to get us to look bad and do whatever else to make us look bad. They're twisters of words. If we're brainwashing people, why haven't you been affected? You've read the Watchtower and Awake, haven't you? Why is no one here being affected by my 'brainwashing' ?

JW's follower's preachings can be ignored and dismissed for no direct personal value or followed avidly by all who hear....such is the tenets of 'free opinion' [not 'free speech']. Personally I'd prefer that the copy-paste of slabs of any version of the bible would cease.....may [your] God help us if it violates copyright....

Yes, you can accept us or not. You can believe us or not. Its not our choice, its yours.
If you, Jafo, wish to stop me from posting, that is completely up to you. You are an admin of this site and I will follow your rules. If not, I will continue to post Scripture to back up my claims.

People not within this belief system are condemned and are not to be addressed as human beings 2) Encourage total isolation from others (in other words r3fr would not be able to post here) except to preach/teach in a controlled setting along side ANOTHER believer.

No, we don't condem people nor not adress them as humans. No, we also don't encourage total isolation.

religion is nothing more than a belief system, and as such is something someone holds as a personal truth at the point they decide it is time to push it on others, is in fact the time it becomes a nusence... So don't be a pain in the ass, keep it to yourself, if you want to explain why you feel the way you do because of a religious belief it does not mean you have to try and stack your deck with your god. leave that at home...

Accoring to my belief system, I believe I am to tell others about Gods word, which was commanded.

If you don't ask serious questions that can break your beliefs fundamentally every once and a while how do you propose to get to the actual answer?

Well, like i've said a few times before I pray to God for guidence, as well as personal study.
You too, can also pray for guidence if you feel you need it.

I feel I should discontue my posting on this board. This discussion will continue forever. With truth not being truth and 'truth' not being 'truth'. I feel that i'm not properly presenting my beliefs. For those with a spark of interest of anything I said, do like Joe said and check it out. Ask yourself questions. Strive for the truth. Use your own Bible to see if what i've said is true and makes sense. Ask your church leader questions about what i've said. Make sure he uses the Holy Bible to answer, because thats where the answers are. Ask him about the paradise earth. Ask him why, according to Ecclesiastes 1:4, the earth will endure forever. And again, make sure he uses the Bible because the answers WILL be in there. If you truly want to serve God accurately, you'll do these simple things.

Then you may agree that there is the possibility that your religion isn't the true one? Don't you think God would help us to see the answers because he wants us to live?

Yup. Yup to both questions. help us does not mean COMMAND us. If we are really seeking the truth we will continue the journey forward. I do not think God expects us to be perfect at it (especially after, as the story goes, Jesus died for our sins). Can it be possible that you and your brethren are wrong? Does that mean God will toss you out of the Great Memory like a football going down-field??


But you can't say the same because I guess you think you are perfect. I can't fathom any other possibility even though there can be some. I guess I would ask why do you think your perfect and that evolution is the way it is?


No wait you DID say there is a chance ironically by stating that there was a time where smoking and other such acts were allowed.




Is it me or am I not explaining what reading comprehension is and interpretation can do to understanding anything?


Does anybody understand what I am talking about when I speak to reading comprehension and Attribution Theory?

heh BStreet...your fight is a good one...But, if you know anything about JWs they will just smile at a slamed door, and just go to the next one..It's really not their fault, They're just Programed that way.



[Message Edited]

Like the congregations of old, false teachings have crept in our congregations. But as time passed, we were enlightened and those teachings are no longer part of our religion. As for today, we've cleansed ourselves of every Babylonish teaching to truly be "no part of this world."

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo then there was a point where you were wrong even thought you 'believed' you (meaning JW) was right.

But that can't happen now because... why?


Is anybody else getting my point (not that you have to agree with it but at least understand it) so I can stop quoting so often?


All I am trying to say basically is that if you, someone else, and I can not leave the possibility of mis-understanding of something possible then how do we get enlightened.

Even JW has to be thankful for allowing itself to ask serious questions otherwise it would not be enlightened as r3fr so states of today's congregation. (keeping in mind that yesterdays congregation said the same thing)


Science and religion NEED self-evaluation periods... period. To take that everything is right and the ideals of the leaders are best because God wouldn't allow it to be wrong (not true believers because they are true believers and can't get it wrong) or that the scientest don't ever have a personal agenda would be dangerous indeed.


I need a soda. Anybody want me to get then something from outside?


PS
IPlural don't look out the window. Nothing to see there. The world is flat. Done.


[Message Edited]

I am just trying to say that it 'could' be said that a known truth at any point in time can become something else later on.

There are some limits on the degree to which 'truth' is becoming 'something else'.

To use the flat earth argument, in order for a flat earth theory to supplant the current state of knowledge, it would have to subsume *ALL* of the physical characteristics and observable phenomena that are currently included in the current viewpoint. Additionally, in order for it to become accepted knowledge, it would also have to predict events or behaviour accurately that cannot be predicted or explained in the current system.

To use a simple example, take an eclipse (solar or lunar). notice the shape of the shadow on the moon for a lunar eclipse, or look at the shape of the occluding form blocking the sun in a solar eclipse. In every observed instance, that shape has always been circular, regardless of when they are observed, and the relative positions of the subject bodies. As a brief foray into elementary geometry will make clear, the only geometric form for which every cross section (or projection, for a shadow) is circular is a sphere.

Apart from this, there is a vast amount of observational evidence (and theoretical as well) to support the sphericity of all sufficiently massive bodies.

A flat earth theory, to be valid, would have to subsume (incorporate) *every* bit of the above observations and theoretical framework, and it would have to improve on the current theory as well (with predictions, bourne out by observation, that cannot be made with the existing theory). If it is only as good, there is no compelling reason to choose one model over the other.

I said all of that to say this: A large number of people (some of whom have been taught in science) fail to understand the mechanism of the formation, development, and growth of scientific theories. Where a scientific theory has been bourne out repeatedly by a substantial number of observations and validated predictions, it does not just go away once a case has been found that the current theory cannot explain. What happens is that the new theory that explains the new problem still has to explain (fully) all the observations and validated predictions that the old theory explained. The old theory doesn't go away, it essentially becomes part of the new theory.

To elaborate with an actual occurence of such subsumation, I offer Newton's laws of motion, and Einstein's special theory of relativity. Simply put, Newton's theories stated that the velocities of motions were linearly additive (like throwing a 100mph fastball forward from a train moving at 50mph, the ball would have a groundspeed of 150mph). Einstein's theory was written to explain characteristics of motion (theoretical at the time, but subsequently verified experimentally) where the linear addition of velocity was no longer valid (very high velocities approaching the speed of light (to abuse the above example, we'll launch a baseball at 50% of the speed of light, from a spaceship that is travelling at 90% of the speed of light. The baseball will have a measured velocity that is *less* than the speed of light, somewhere around 99.999%)). Einstein's laws of motion produce the same results as Newton's for relatively small velocities, it only differs in the exceptional cases. It also makes verifiable (and verified) predictions that Newton's theory cannot make.

Such incorporation is typical of well established scientific theories.

Now, when you start discussing very novel scientific theories, philosophical 'truths', and historical assertions, it does become possible for a subsequent theory to have a substantial chance of fully supplanting a prior viewpoint. Even then, the supplanting viewpoint needs to make a better fit of the data and evidence than the previous viewpoint (or as is often the case, incorporate new evidence or data that is at odds with the prior view).