DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-01 04:58pm

Right - If you all think we're wrong about everything, I think that a debate is in order. Me vs. All of you. As [probably] the sole representativeof JW's on this entire forum, I humbly challenge you all to give me reasons as to why you think that we are so wrong, and I want them thoroughly explained. I don't just want a statement, I WANT PROOF. Then, I shall explain or refute these in the best way I can.

For instance, take this very interesting post by Mike Wong on the last JW thread that was put up by Evil Jerk:

"The last time I got into an argument with a JW, I calmly pointed out problem after problem with the Bible until he suddenly started yelling at me that The Bible came from God and is perfect, and if it contradicts science and logic, then science and logic are both wrong."

This guy can't have been a particularly good debator. I can give you a better debate than that, and I'm only 15. So lay it on me.

"I've also visited a JW service to see what it's like, and it's downright frightening, because of all the brainwashing techniques."

I would laugh, but...
...I can't think of a good reason not to laugh...So I will.

NOTE TO MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the last thread of JW's, it was closed for being new and not a revived topic. I'm sorry to say that you are WRONG. It was on the 3rd page of the board when I revived it, and you closed it for being a new topic, which it was not. Therefore, I humbly offer this thread and would ask you not to close it, as this could get interesting.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-01 05:03pm

How about this for an opening

The JW book "Let God Be True" (1946) says that each of the seven days of creation was 7,000 years long. And that since Adam was "created toward the close of the sixth day, he was put on earth toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's preparation." (p. 155) And since "[a]ccording to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation" (April 1, 1968, Watchtower), we know that the universe must have been created 48,028 years ago.

--Edit--
I am lazy and cut & pasted this from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
/Edir

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-01 05:24pm

Faram wrote:How about this for an opening
The JW book "Let God Be True" (1946) says that each of the seven days of creation was 7,000 years long. And that since Adam was "created toward the close of the sixth day, he was put on earth toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's preparation." (p. 155) And since "[a]ccording to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation" (April 1, 1968, Watchtower), we know that the universe must have been created 48,028 years ago.

As I am sure that your sources must note, our understanding increases as time goes on and therefore we change some of our doctrines to support new information that we can glean. For instance, JW's could smoke until about 30 years ago, and this was because we found a scripture that denounced it indirectly. Therefore, it is more than likely that the information in the 1946 book is incorrect, and that the 1968 watchtower is around the correct time. As it is, we do not know how long the dayswere to be certain. It could have been anything from 24 hours to 1 billion years. We just don't know.
Next please.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 05:40pm

The JWs are a cult. They make the rest of Christianity look bad, and I am rather irritated that they have decided to pollute my religion.

Have you head of Witness 'ex-communicaton'? Sure you have. Horrible thing.

I'd like to take STRONG issue with that 'changing of the doctrine' bit. The ability to dismiss and interperate doctrine lies SOLELY with the Watchtower; it alone decides what is right and what is wrong for JW's.

I am a strong supporter of he idea that everyone is free to interperate the Bible the way he or she chooses. As a proponent of this ideal, I am in strong opposition to the sheep-like JW cult and their pet Papacy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 05:44pm

Australopithicus wrote:Right - If you all think we're wrong about everything, I think that a debate is in order. Me vs. All of you. As [probably] the sole representativeof JW's on this entire forum, I humbly challenge you all to give me reasons as to why you think that we are so wrong, and I want them thoroughly explained. I don't just want a statement, I WANT PROOF. Then, I shall explain or refute these in the best way I can.

The Bible is scientifically absurd. See the examples on my Creationism website.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 05:47pm

So is Star Trek. The Bible isn't trying to be a scientific journal.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 06:00pm

Cyril wrote:So is Star Trek. The Bible isn't trying to be a scientific journal.

Thank you for agreeing with me that the Bible is nothing but a fiction, much like Star Trek, written by the scientifically ignorant, for the scientifically ignorant.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-01 06:05pm

According to the bible

The Bible Deuteronomy 18:20 wrote: But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

April 1 1968 Watchtower wrote: Armageddon will occur in the autumn of 1975, fully 6000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day.

Now did you stone the editor of the watchtower to death or?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 06:13pm

Thank you for agreeing with me that the Bible is nothing but a fiction, much like Star Trek, written by the scientifically ignorant, for the scientifically ignorant.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that; I said it's not trying to be a scientific journal and that refering to the stars as 'dim points of light' and not as massive, firey orbs of explosive gases is understandable, execusable, and nothing more than a nitpick.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 06:18pm

Cyril wrote:Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that; I said it's not trying to be a scientific journal and that refering to the stars as 'dim points of light' and not as massive, firey orbs of explosive gases is understandable, execusable, and nothing more than a nitpick.

Primitive man already understood mining and metallurgy. He was not so stupid that he wouldn't have understood the concept that stars are Suns which happen to be very far away.

My six year old gets it! It's not that difficult to grasp!

Besides, you act as if this is the only scientific absurdity in the Bible, when it is but one of countless such absurdities. Look at the order of creation (the Sun before all of the other stars, the plants before the Sun, the Earth before everything else). That's wrong. Look at the Old Testament's recommended procedures for healing the sick: fucking ANIMAL SACRIFICE! Look at how both OT and NT describe various diseases as demonic infestations, when we know perfectly well that they are caused by microbial infections. The Bible isn't just allegorical; it's moronic. It explicitly recommends actions (such as animal-sacrifice in disease treatment) which are based on pure ignorance, and which cannot possibly provide any benefit.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 06:21pm

So? It was written by men 2000+ years ago; of course it's going to be scientifically inaccurate(absurd, if you prefer). Are you suggesting that they should have known about bacteria? My point was that this has *no bearing* on Christianity itself.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-01 06:25pm

This is a good one:
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day

Genesis 1,14 - 1,18 wrote: 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 06:28pm

Is it too hard for someone to accept that Genesis is not meant to be literal, austro?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 06:30pm

Cyril wrote:Is it too hard for someone to accept that Genesis is not meant to be literal, austro?

Or factually accurate, or reasonable, or remotely consistent with any kind of common sense ...

But we should believe in all the parts of the Bible that are not absurd, right? Uh huh ...

As I said before, the Bible is like Star Trek: fiction written by morons.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-01 06:32pm

Who cares what it was meant to be? It's an inaccurate portrayal of the creation of the universe, right from the very beginning! "Let there be light" makes no sense because photons didn't exist until 500,000 years into the universe's creation!

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-01 06:32pm

Cyril wrote:Is it too hard for someone to accept that Genesis is not meant to be literal, austro?

Can you please show me witch part that are meant to be Literal

People in JW live with parts of the bible as the truth and other part should be disregarded?

I would like to know witch part is fantasy and witch parts JW uses?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 06:34pm

come on, the idea of the bible wasnt that bad. leave out all the creation and crap like that and you get a good set of rule:

dont kill
dont steal

if someone damages your eye then damage his eye and dont fucking kill him

dont touch pig skin: probably there was some pig desease back in the days.

dont fuck animals

dont fuck your mother or sister

and what could have been better back then than an authority which sees everything and punishes you for everything after life? obviously the police wasnt as advanced as today so crimes couldnt be researched as well as today.

of course there are a couple of laws which were stupid even then like if your gay, you deserve to die

but the major part of these laws were probably a good thing in these times.
nowadays the bible is imo a nice sometimes amusing, somtimes boring thing to read, not more not less.

MAHOK!

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-01 06:39pm

Hmm don't steal.

Exodus 20:15 wrote: Thou shalt not steal.

Would you steal to feed your starving child?

I sure hope you would but according to the bible...

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-01 06:40pm

Cyril wrote:Is it too hard for someone to accept that Genesis is not meant to be literal, austro?

The Fundies take it literally. Trust me I know. The Bible was made too be taken literally. All Christain Light does it says it "a series g good moralke stories" Oh, wait didn't God wipe out the population the final days? Didn't he kill innoncent children in Soddom that were unborn? How about the young killed in Noah's flood? The only way you can argue aganist my arguments is take the Bible literally, or admit it is wrong.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-10-01 06:41pm

-notes this is one of the funniest topics he's seen in a while-

shall I toss in my thot that God exists, but he's a bastard trying to win a popularity contest? it should make things even more fiery.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 06:42pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:-notes this is one of the funniest topics he's seen in a while-

shall I toss in my thot that God exists, but he's a bastard trying to win a popularity contest? it should make things even more fiery.

I like that one

In other words, God is a narcissistic asshole.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-01 06:44pm

I came to that conclusion a while ago.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 06:45pm

Faram wrote:Hmm don't steal.

Exodus 20:15 wrote: Thou shalt not steal.
Would you steal to feed your starving child?

I sure hope you would but according to the bible...

oh, well alright this might be right, but there might be some subparagraph which tells you that if you´re starving you may steal.

it also tought the people not to hate foreigners for example ( the samaritian guy)
or not to exploit poor people ( the tax collector zachaeus [ dont know english name])
or: if some ows you money and doesnt have anything you may take stuff from him but for example you may not take his coat because he´d freeze to death and so on.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-01 06:52pm

I think it's about time to hand out some Fundie Moron titles.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-01 06:52pm

salm wrote:
it also tought the people not to hate foreigners for example ( the samaritian guy)

Sorry

Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity, God promises to dash their infants to pieces and their "women with child shall be ripped up.

Hosa 13:16 wrote: Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

Re: DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods insid