Baker

Couldn't that be said of science and evolution?


And where is paxx?? I would love to here what he has to say about all this. Particularly about the "thou Shall not Kill" statement.


I can see this being a positive discussion on which one is more valid, evolution or creation, but we have to try to avoid absolutes mainly because there are not many to begin with (many as in single digits many)

It is amazing to me how humans (including myself) have the ability to attribute things to try to explain something. Then there is also a tendency to over simplify AND a tendency (animistic I believe) to make things 100% safe/unsafe and understandable. We HAVE to know what is around us to feel secure.


So Aleatoric:

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.

To think at one time we thought all of this was wrong. How primitive.

Are you willing to die for your family? Are you willing to die for what you believe?

Yes, but you are not the one dying. Theres a differnece between letting yourself get killed for a *just* cause and killing someone else for an *unjust* cause.

This is the main means of all cults to control. -Envelop the lives of members.-Make the members reliant on the church for 'fellowship'. -Give the church authority control over the spiritual afterlife of members.-Make it their sole authority, over and above 'earthly' powers. -Once they have become totally spiritually dependent, threaten to 'shun' (isolate) them if they don't fall into line.

I think these points are very true but does not a cult make.

Very close to one though. VERY close indeed.

To me what would make it a cult is he want an willingness to outright say that

1)
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.


So I don't see the name being used for JW any different than calling roman Catholics (or Catholics in general), Protestant's or Jewish faiths a cult. JW has way more 'values' and practices (much of which you pointed out Bakerstreet) of control then others and is bordering on cult status.

I say again, looking at Organizational Behavior you can see allot of social behaviors that are actually negative to emotional growth.








In other words you can call it a cult, but actually it is only very close to being one technically, according to studies of human behavior and sociology.


[Message Edited]

What is MORE sad is that to many, Jehovah's Witnesses are considered a cult, but those same people do not realize that Roman Catholicism is also a 'cult', as is Protestantism, or Judaism, or any other flavor one would care to mention....including atheism.

religion in and of itself is a cult by definition sad to say...

I apologies for the long cut and paste but someone else has already typed it and frankly I do not have it in me to elucidate on a personal stance about it.....

jafo said it best, those that thump any form of dogma either for or against the existence are in fact a cult.

Why do you think it is so freaking hard to come up with a definition for Terrorism and Terrorist? If we define it for a select group we find all forms of government fall into the grouping.

Know what when I die I hope there is a God because I want to nail it's but down and have it answer some really hard questions and then it can send me to the 9 circles of damnation and into the pit of total despair....

Meanings of the Word CULT There is no generally accepted, single, current definition for the word "cult," or for many other religious terms. This leads to confusion over the meanings of certain religious terms, such as Christian, cult hell, heaven, occult, Paganism, salvation, Witch, Witchcraft, Unitarian, Universalism, Voodoo, etc. A reader must often look at the context in which the word is used in order to guess at the intent of the writer. In the newsgroup alt.usage.english, terms like this one are often called "skunk words." They have varied meanings to different people. In fact, they have so many meanings that they often cause misunderstandings wherever they are used. Unfortunately, most people do not know this, and naturally assume that the meaning that they have been taught is the universal definition of the term. The term "Unitarian" is a good example: Pre-1776 CE: Belief in a single God and the rejection of the Christian concept of the Trinity. Post-1776: A creed less, dogma-free religious organization. The Unitarian Universalized Association, (UUA) is an association of Unitarian groups. Utter confusion reigns when an author is using one definition of "Unitarian," while a reader assumes the other meaning. Misunderstandings also happen when an author assumes that both definitions refer to the same organization or belief. Perhaps the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the Latin noun "cultus" which is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists or Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics, Hindus or Muslims. However, the term has since been assigned at least 7 new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; later definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative: Positive Meaning: Theological usage: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as: "worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings" "a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies" devotion or homage to a particular person or thing." This is the historical meaning of the word, but is rarely today heard outside of religious circles. A reference to the "Cult of Mary" appeared in a newspaper report on the Pope's 1999 visit to the Americas. It simply means that the Pope devotes special attention to the Virgin Mary. Neutral Meanings: Sociological usage: A small religious group that exists in a state of tension with the predominant religion. Hinduism might be considered a cult in North America; Christianity might be considered a cult in India. Additional sociological usage: An innovative, fervent religious group, as contrasted with more established and conventional sects and denominations. The Observer: An English newspaper seemed to use the term to refer to any small religious group, no matter what its age or teachings. 1 General religious usage: A small, recently created, religious organization which is often headed by a single charismatic leader and is viewed as an spiritually innovative group. A cult in this sense may simply be a new religious movement on its way to becoming a denomination. The Christian religion, as it existed in 30 CE might be considered a cult involving one leader and 12 or 70 devoted followers. The Mormon denomination was started in the 19 Th century by Joseph Smith and a few followers; it later grew to become an established denomination. Negative Meanings: Evangelical Christian and Counter-Cult Movement usage: Any religious group which accepts most but not all of the historical Christian doctrines (the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation, etc.). The implication is that the cult's theology is invalid; they teach heresy. Under this definition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), Unification Church and Jehovah's Witnesses to be cults. But they would not classify Wicca as such, because it is not associated with Christianity. The earliest use of this meaning of the word "Cult" is believed to be a 1938 book "The Chaos of the Cults" by J.K. VanBaalen. On the other hand, new religious groups such as the Mormons, Unification Church and Jehovah's Witnesses generally regard themselves to be the true Christian church. They view all other denominations as being in error. Thus, one groups true church is another group's cult. Fundamentalist Christian usage: Some Fundamentalists would accept the Evangelical definition of cult defined above. Others might brand any religious group which deviates from historical Protestant Christian beliefs as a cult. This definition would include the Mormon Church, Wicca, mainline and liberal Christian denominations, Islam, Hinduism, and all of the other religions of the world. Over 70% of humanity would belong to cults, by this definition. Mental Health Groups and anti-cult movement usage: A small number of therapists, research psychologists, self-taught individuals, etc., form the anti-cult movement (ACM) They attempt to raise public consciousness about what they see as dangerous and authoritarian mind control cults and doomsday cults. Many do not care about the faith group's theology. They target only what they see as deceptive practices, and dangerous psychological pressure techniques, such as brainwashing. The ACM appears to hold opinions about the effectiveness of brainwashing that are not shared by the mental-health community generally. They see mind control/doomsday cults as a widespread social problem. Very negative meaning: Popular, media usage: (very negative meaning) a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, which engages in brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry in preparation for a massive war. Often used as a synonym for mind control religious group or for doomsday cult. The earliest use of this meaning of the word is believed to have been in a 1965 book by Walter Martin "The Kingdom of the Cults" (revised and expanded in 1985). We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wiccans, other Neopagans and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless. Recommended use of the term "cult": In 1998-MAY, the Associated Press decided to avoid the use of the word "cult" because it had acquired a pejorative aura; they have since given preference to the term "sect." In 1990-FEB, an editorial by Terry Muck in Christianity Today -- the largest Evangelical magazine in the U.S. -- recommended that Christians should avoid using the word. He cited three reasons: "The spirit of fair play suggests it is best to refer to groups of people as they refer to themselves." "There is also a theological reason for avoiding [the label, for it wrongly implies that certain sinners] are the worst kind." "It simply does not work well to use disparaging terms to describe the people whom we hope will come to faith in Christ.... In fact, we are commanded to love them as ourselves." We recommend that the word "cult" be rarely used. We recommend: Using a term such as "new religious movement," "alternative religious movement," "emergent religion or faith group." These terms are more precise and have not (yet) been burdened by so many negative connotations, as has "cult." Using a term such as "heretical" or "spiritual counterfeit" to describe a faith group with whom you disagree on theological grounds. An even better usage is to simply refer to the group by its name. Of course, if you are an author, public speaker or teleminister who wants to direct public fear and hatred against a new religious group, then "cult" is an ideal word to use. But the use of the term may be irresponsible and immoral, depending upon your system of values. We suspect, but cannot prove, that some Internet web sites, including many: Counter-cult groups -- those who mainly attack Christian denominations and sects which promote novel beliefs, and Anti-cult groups -- those who attack high-intensity new religious movements which require a strong commitment from their members, intentionally use the term "cult" for manipulative purposes. They hope that their visitors will bring with them fear and loathing of dangerous faith groups, like the former Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate, and transfer these negative feelings to such denominations as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. This web site normally refers only to "doomsday faith groups" as "cults." We feel that use of the word "cult" without careful definition in advance leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Meaning of the word DENOMINATION A Denomination is an established religious group, which has usually been in existence for many years and has geographically widespread membership. It typically unites a group of individual congregations into a single administrative body. Denominations differ greatly in the sharing of power between individual congregations and the central authority. Baptist churches have historically allowed individual churches to hold diverse beliefs. (An exception is the Southern Baptists Convention who reversed centuries of tradition and expelled some congregations over the homosexual issue.) Other denominations centralize authority, and allow congregations little freedom to deviate in beliefs or policies. Meaning of the word SECT A Sect is a small religious group that is an offshoot of an established religion or denomination. It holds most beliefs in common with its religion of origin, but has a number of novel concepts which differentiate them from that religion. Many religions started as Sects. One well-known example was the Nazarenes. This was an reform movement within Judaism formed by Jesus' apostles after the execution of Jesus circa 30 CE They were largely dispersed or killed some four decades later when the Romans attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. Perhaps the most obvious North American example of a sect that evolved into a denomination is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons. Their founder, Joseph Smith, had a revelation from God that the ministry of Jesus Christ continued after his crucifixion, as described in what is now called the Book of Mormon. The Mormon sect has since evolved into the Mormon denomination of Christianity with the passage of time and the gathering of increasing numbers of followers. Within a few decades, it is expected to become the dominant faith group in the American west. When statehood was being considered for Utah, a major impediment was the beliefs and practices in the Church regarding polygamy. Shortly after a new revelation from God banned the practice, statehood was granted. This caused a number of small sects to break away from the established church, in order to allow their male followers to continue to have multiple wives. Some of these sects continue to this day in the United States and Canada, although they have been excommunicated by the main Mormon Church. A similar crisis occurred in the mid 1970's when a new revelation from God abolished the church's institutionalized discrimination against Afro-Americans. This time, the membership accepted the new ruling; there were no breakaway sects. Sects can therefore be considered a normal mechanism by which new religious movements are generated. Most sects die out quickly; others linger; still others grow and evolve in to a new established religious movement and are properly called denominations. There remains a negative connotation for many people to the word sect; they would much rather refer to their faith group as a denomination. Reference: An English newspaper, the Observer maintained a page dealing with what they call "cults". Unfortunately, they mixed together a variety of new religious groups, dangerous life threatening cults and small established faith groups. The only common factor among the faith groups that they describe is that they are all small in membership. Many of their essays were not particularly accurate. They were at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/observer/cults/a-z-cults/index.html Unfortunately, this link appears to now be dead. their web site was once a useful example of the misuse of a emotionally biased word to raise public fear and hatred against benign religious groups. Copyright © 1996 to 2003 incl. by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance Latest update: 2003-APR-8 Author: B.A. Robinson

[Message Edited]

Yeah EventHorizon, I found that statement interesting too. I remember the statement relating to a family member's child. Your the adult and you decide to forgo the transfusion even though at the time of emergency or what have you, it is the only option available to keep them alive.


Despite that possible scenario, r3fr has avoided to specifically answer that question; instead referring back to an individual choice method relating to oneself as opposed to who you are caring for.


I think most people admitted that there is a possibility that they are a group of trusted people they believe in can get it wrong. At this point we should be discussing the possibilities of each and what it could mean.

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).