Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
No, when it's JW "literature", it's called brainwashing. I've attended a JW service, for research purposes. I honestly could not think of a single facet of that service which was not textbook brainwashing technique.LadyBarbara wrote:No, dear. I have each issue bound according to year in books. It's called reading.
) Only if that untruth is demonstrated through Scripture. What if it's demonstrated through something silly like logic and observation?LadyBarbara wrote:Actually, Archaic, BenRG introduced me to this forum. I don't follow you all over the 'net.
Regarding 1975: Jehovah's Witnesses have made errors in their beliefs in the past, much as the Catholic Church did when it charged Galileo with heresy for his scientific studies. However, the Witnesses do not claim to be prophets. Increased knowledge gained through studying the Bible often requires adjustments in one's thinking. Jehovah's Witnesses are humbly willing to make those adjustments. And when I see an untruth about my religious beliefs, I correct it, Archaic.
Evolution is a well-grounded scientific theory, not a "doctrine". Stop performing psychological projection.Since everyone on this board attacks anyone who dares question the almighty doctrine of evolution, why shouldn't I be allowed equal time to explain my beliefs?
Or perhaps he got tired of repetitive bullshit.I also noticed that you opted out of the debate on UPN. I'm surprised you used exams as the reason, though, since you told me that your IQ was in the 180s and you didn't have to study. Whatever.
And what of the possibility that you're wrong, your whole religion is full of shit, the Bible is nothing but worthless hearsay, and Jesus was a deranged lunatic? Why do you assume people are being unreasonable if they won't accept your unsupported and unsupportable doctrines, or warm up to your intrusive door-to-door salesmanship practices?Why bother debating? Most of you here seem to have already formed your own opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Why bother explaining when nobody's willing to listen? Even Jesus suggested that his disciples "shake the dust off their feet" after speaking to people who were unresponsive.
Or perhaps he got tired of repetitive bullshit.I also noticed that you opted out of the debate on UPN. I'm surprised you used exams as the reason, though, since you told me that your IQ was in the 180s and you didn't have to study. Whatever.
HAHAHAHAHAH- how many times have we all heard this drivel? Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory of gravity is also a theory. Do you doubt gravity exists?LadyBarbara wrote:
Yes, Mr. Wong. A theory, not a fact.
Evolution has been observed- this makes it a fact- the theory discusses it's mechanisms. Theory is an explanation of observations- facts.I won't speak for Mike, but religious people are fundamentally irrational. If they admit this, I have no problem with it- this is what 'faith' is based on- an irrational belief with no evidence whatsoever.Maybe we'll all find out after Judgment Day, Mr. Wong. I don't assume anyone is being unreasonable if they reject what I have to say. Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable or stupid?
Only after a great deal of insistence and forcing me to shut the door in their faces. Parasitical leaches. Catholics do not behave that way. Stop speaking for all the christians, as your sect has nothing to do with the majority feelings and ideas.LadyBarbara wrote:The answer to Boba Fett's question is at Matthew 28:19, 20. Jesus himself could have sat atop a mountain and waited for the faithful to come to him. But he didn't; instead, he preached throughout Galilee and Judea. We are simply following his instructions. And if someone says, "Not interested," we leave.
Good job, taking advantage of people's natural despair faced with the lost of loved ones. After regaining rationality, people simply start thinking again.However, we continue calling on people because we also realize that circumstances change. Many people suddenly became more religiously minded after Sept 11th. But then that interest petered out, mostly because they didn't have any faith to back it up.
I dare you to try to defend the Biblical creation of Earth against Science.That untruth was posted as fact. I corrected it. I also notice that the person who initially made that assertation hasn't made any others.
Defend them, back up your ideas, do not preach.Since everyone on this board attacks anyone who dares question the almighty doctrine of evolution, why shouldn't I be allowed equal time to explain my beliefs?
Your understanding of the definition of theory in science is serioulsy lacking.Yes, Mr. Wong. A theory, not a fact.
That's because all of them, until date, possess the knowledge of a high school junior, in therms of science.Why bother debating? Most of you here seem to have already formed your own opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Why bother explaining when nobody's willing to listen? Even Jesus suggested that his disciples "shake the dust off their feet" after speaking to people who were unresponsive.
Yes, the final argument. You've led a good life and all, but because you don't follow my particular version of god you'll rot in hell.Maybe we'll all find out after Judgment Day, Mr. Wong. I don't assume anyone is being unreasonable if they reject what I have to say. Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable or stupid?
Ah, what a lovely appeal to authority fallacy that doesn't actually address the real issue (red herring fallacy).LadyBarbara wrote:The answer to Boba Fett's question is at Matthew 28:19, 20. Jesus himself could have sat atop a mountain and waited for the faithful to come to him. But he didn't; instead, he preached throughout Galilee and Judea. We are simply following his instructions.
Bullshit. Most JWs I've seen will keep pestering until the door is slammed in their face and sometimes not even then (sticking their foot in the door). Your missionaries will do anything dishonest to get in the home (like telling the person that your kid needs to use the restroom).And if someone says, "Not interested," we leave.
Using that trajedy to inflate your church's numbers? Thats disgusting.However, we continue calling on people because we also realize that circumstances change. Many people suddenly became more religiously minded after Sept 11th. But then that interest petered out, mostly because they didn't have any faith to back it up.
The Catholics eventually admitted they were wrong. The JWs just removed the false doctrine from their literature and tried to deny ever having taught any such ridiculous thing.Regarding 1975: Jehovah's Witnesses have made errors in their beliefs in the past, much as the Catholic Church did when it charged Galileo with heresy for his scientific studies.
Then don't claim to speak for God. Don't claim that your interpretation of scripture is superior to anyone else's.However, the Witnesses do not claim to be prophets.
No, it often causes one to stop thinking.Increased knowledge gained through studying the Bible often requires adjustments in one's thinking.
Name one instance when the JWs openly admitted they were wrong instead of quietly revising history after the fact?Jehovah's Witnesses are humbly willing to make those adjustments. And when I see an untruth about my religious beliefs, I correct it, Archaic.
You have done nothign of the sort. I noticed you failed to answer data_link's question of whether your Watchtower was an original print or a revised edition after the fact. Kind of hard to miss since his post was the last one on page 13.That untruth was posted as fact. I corrected it. I also notice that the person who initially made that assertation hasn't made any others.
By all means, explain your beliefs. You have that freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. constitution (which the JW's refuse to support or acknowledge because of their irrational doctrine of Satan controling all governments). Just keep in mind that the people on this board also have the freedom to criticise those beliefs as well thanks to that same freedom of speech. Keep in mind that you will need to back them up with reasoning and evidence and NO, quoting scripture is NOT evidence.Since everyone on this board attacks anyone who dares question the almighty doctrine of evolution, why shouldn't I be allowed equal time to explain my beliefs?
Do you know the difference between the layman's definition of 'theory' and the scientific one?Yes, Mr. Wong. A theory, not a fact.
Then stop coming by our homes.Perhaps. I don't know his reasons, really. I guess we all get tired of repetitive b.s., don't we?
Do you have any idea what it actually means to shake off the dust of one's feet?Why bother debating? Most of you here seem to have already formed your own opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Why bother explaining when nobody's willing to listen? Even Jesus suggested that his disciples "shake the dust off their feet" after speaking to people who were unresponsive.
The JWs have been saying that Judgment day will happen any day now for over a hundred years with at least half a dozen predicted "end of the world" dates come and gone with nothing. Even the Bible itself (with all of its problems) is quite clear that no one knows when the end of the world will be, yet the JW have given several different dates throughout the religion's history and every single one of them has been wrong. Most people are tired of waiting. Either put up or shut up.Maybe we'll all find out after Judgment Day, Mr. Wong. I don't assume anyone is being unreasonable if they reject what I have to say. Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable or stupid?
Did it ever occur to you that by not coming to you of their own accord, most people are already saying "not interested?" It is inherently intrusive to bother someone in his own home; I don't like telemarketers, and I don't like door-to-door salesmen of any kind, regardless of whether they're selling vacuum cleaners or religious cults like yours.LadyBarbara wrote:And if someone says, "Not interested," we leave.
Interesting theory. Why do you discard the possibility that interest petered out because they realized they don't like your cult, and it isn't helping them?However, we continue calling on people because we also realize that circumstances change. Many people suddenly became more religiously minded after Sept 11th. But then that interest petered out, mostly because they didn't have any faith to back it up.
A theory and a fact. Learn to read.Yes, Mr. Wong. A theory, not a fact.
Judgement Day's been called off. Didn't you watch T2? Oh, wait; you actually take silly fiction like that seriously, don't you?Maybe we'll all find out after Judgment Day, Mr. Wong.
I don't. However, when someone chooses to defend an unreasonable or stupid doctrine, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that he or she is unreasonable and/or stupid.I don't assume anyone is being unreasonable if they reject what I have to say. Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable or stupid?
This has become an issue at the Wawa that am I an assitant manager at. Recently, a wave of church-goers have been bombarding our nightshift employees (after we/they have made it clear that we aren't intrested) with their religious doctrine. They have been shoving pamphlets at us, and one went even so far as to take it upon himself to hang on up infront of our register without our permission. This solicitation is not welcomed, and if pressed any further, I will contact the police for it, as it has gone beyond just solicitation and become harrassment.Darth Wong wrote:Did it ever occur to you that by not coming to you of their own accord, most people are already saying "not interested?" It is inherently intrusive to bother someone in his own home; I don't like telemarketers, and I don't like door-to-door salesmen of any kind, regardless of whether they're selling vacuum cleaners or religious cults like yours.LadyBarbara wrote:And if someone says, "Not interested," we leave.However, we continue calling on people because we also realize that circumstances change. Many people suddenly became more religiously minded after Sept 11th. But then that interest petered out, mostly because they didn't have any faith to back it up.
Take a gander: "gotdoom.com wrote: Speaking of god, it's already been documented on these pages before how I hate when people try to push religion on other people. I hate when people try to force-feed it down your throat, even after you expressed that you do not wish them to do so.
Recently, this issue has arisen once more. It appears that a certain church down the road from our Wa has taken it upon themselves to have a holy mission to come and purge this place of infidels by spreading "His good word" and converting us to sheep-dom. Basically, they've been soliciting and harrassing our night crew for several weeks now.
It seems to have all taken off shortly after that night where the woman tried so desperately to sell religion to me (see Page 5 of my journal). Ever since then, it seems that a continous weekly stream of these religious types keep comming in to try and force their god down our throats. None of our night workers appreciate it, and all of them are sick and tired of it.
The first blow came when a man gave me a pamphlet that was nothing short of propaganda. The world hasn't seen brain-washing and shit-tactics like this since the nazi's. The pamphlet was so offensive that it actually further damaged Christianity's standings in my mind. The entire angle of the pamplet was based around 9-11 (as far as the cover work goes), and made it seem like it was a response to what had happened. But really, all that was was a ploy to get someone to read the inside to try and melt their brain and turn them into a mindless zombie. "
gotdoom.com wrote: "Yes, "What if YOU had been here?" with a big picture of the smoking, flamming towers. And one might think this is a direct response to 9-11, but it isn't. On the inside it goes on to say "WHAT IF YOU had bee in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001? What would have happened to YOU? YOU could have died, and YOU would have had to face GOD."
And then it goes on to quote passages from the bible, and ramble on about sin and redemption. It has nothing to do with 9-11. And it doesn't even seem to mention the fact that if god was so forgiving and loving then why did he allow this to happen in the first place? It uses 9-11 as propoganda to try and threaten or fear you into accepting their religon. It basically says, You're fucked, because terroists blew up the building you were in, but you're fucked even more if you don't accept our god! The next time terrorists blow up a building, make sure you have been saved!
Have they sunk that low that they need to use a tragic event to promote themselves? Apparently.
This was only the first of several blows. Over the course of last night, we have recieved at least 3 more pamphlets from the same place, a fourth yesterday from a different church. And all of them were given to me, pratically forced into my hand, on a night I worked register. Considering the fact that I have only worked register once a week for the last month, that means that the ratio of me working register and they trying to force-feed their religion down my throat is a 100% of the time I work the register!
One day, they even went so far as to get tape from our deli and hang up their pamphlet infront of our register, without our permission! This is nothing but harrassment and soliciting. I brought it up to th emanager, and she has informed us that if they continue to persue these actions after we have asked them nicely to stop, then we can call the police. And I will. And I will press charges.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Are they not getting the fucking point?! I don't like your religion. It's not for me. Stop shoving it down my throat! Do you see me in your church EVER? No! Then stop distributing your propaganda in my store, because it's quite obvious that we aren't intrested!"
These people need to go fuck themselves. Just because I wear all black (and now rightfully so at work as well as home, because our managerial uniforms are black) and because I listen to heavy metal music and wear a pentacle (and not a pentagram, as most people think it is) does not mean I am infidel. Just because your religion is right for you does not mean it's right for everyone else, and it doesn't give you the right to push it on everyone else. You don't see me trying to make you an agnostic. I don't come up to you and try to spoon-feed my beliefs down your throat. I will defend myself if you attack me with your completely illogical beliefs that can easily disproved by science and logic.
But to each his own.
Once again, I demand, "Keep thy religion to thyself."
Therefore, you don't have a clue about scientific method. Have you ever heard of the theory of relativity? Pretty well verified, still called theory. Fact is: There are stars. Theory is: how they were created. Your dicionary definition does not apply.LadyBarbara wrote: Also, my Webster's unabridged dictionary defines "Theory" as "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Therefore, evolution cannot both be a fact and a theory.
So, your judgement day is for real, despite being the idea of only a small, sad sect inspired in one of the World's religions?I don't debate silly fiction, Mr. Wong. It's entertainment and nothing more.
Because there are people who try to enforce at schools ideas that go against science, logic and moral. Like creationism.We don't. We invite anyone interested to open their own copy of the Bible and see for themselves. A person chooses to believe what the Bible says or not; it really is a matter of individual choice. What I'm curious about is why so many of you hate people who do believe in the Bible? Where does this hatred come from?
So gravity cannot be both a fact and a theory either, eh? What kind of idiot attempts to contradict scientific definitions with colloquial dictionary definitions in a debate about science?LadyBarbara wrote:Also, my Webster's unabridged dictionary defines "Theory" as "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Therefore, evolution cannot both be a fact and a theory.
If you don't debate silly fiction, then why do you take the Bible so seriously?I don't debate silly fiction, Mr. Wong. It's entertainment and nothing more.Judgement Day's been called off. Didn't you watch T2? Oh, wait; you actually take silly fiction like that seriously, don't you?
An issue I don't particularly care about. I was talking about your ignorant comments about evolution.What was I defending? I was merely pointing out that the Watchtower magazine never commented that Armageddon was coming in 1975. That was completely and totally without basis and I pointed that out.
Really! Do you know what an ad-hominem attack is? Are you aware that even the most vicious insult is not necessarily an ad-hominem fallacy unless it is used to dismiss one of your arguments without proper rebuttal of its logic and/or facts?I am amazed at the criticism on my debating style, considering most of this thread consists of nothing more than ad hominem attacks against me.
WongPoints++;Darth Wong wrote:If you don't debate silly fiction, then why do you take the Bible so seriously?LadyBarbara wrote:I don't debate silly fiction, Mr. Wong. It's entertainment and nothing more.Darth Wong wrote:Judgement Day's been called off. Didn't you watch T2? Oh, wait; you actually take silly fiction like that seriously, don't you?
Darth Servo wrote:Do you know the difference between the layman's definition of 'theory' and the scientific one?
So it looks like the answer to my question is, "No, I don't have a fucking clue what the difference is between the layman's definition of 'theory' and the scientific one because I'm an uneducated idiot."LadyBarbara wrote:Also, my Webster's unabridged dictionary defines "Theory" as "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Therefore, evolution cannot both be a fact and a theory.
Yes, you do. Every single JW I've ever met has insisted that the Watchtower Bible and Tract society is "God's true religion," that only JWs know the "true meaning of scripture" and every other church on the face of the Earth is a concoction of Satan and its followers will be destroyed on Judgment Day.We don't. We invite anyone interested to open their own copy of the Bible and see for themselves. A person chooses to believe what the Bible says or not; it really is a matter of individual choice. What I'm curious about is why so many of you hate people who do believe in the Bible? Where does this hatred come from?Darth Servo wrote:Then don't claim to speak for God. Don't claim that your interpretation of scripture is superior to anyone else's.
Cleopatra was from the Ptolemaic dynasty. Ptolemy was one of Alexander the Great's generals, and was a Macedonian Greek. According to Egyptian law, the pharoahs were forced to take their consorts from their immediate family, since royal blood was felt to be too lofty to mix with the "impure" blood of common folk. Thus the Ptolemy's "kept it in the family". There probably was some admixture with the native Hamito-Semitic Egyptians nonetheless, but Cleopatra was almost certainly not black.C.S.Strowbridge wrote:AFAIK, Cleopatra was from black, not arabian. (Which is how I would clasify Egyptians.)Durran Korr wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cleopatra wasn't exactly a real Egyptian, was she? I thought she was more of Greek descent.Caesar didn't seem to have a problem with Cleopatra (the real Cleopatra did not look like Elizabeth Taylor, just in case you've never seen pictures of real Egyptians), and that's pretty fucking high- profile if you ask me.
*Shrugs* Fair enough. Given that neither of you have posted here in a long time, it was a fair enough assumption.LadyBarbara wrote:Actually, Archaic, BenRG introduced me to this forum. I don't follow you all over the 'net.
