• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Coming out as creationists: fear.

Do you believe Creationists are afraid of coming out?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • No

    Votes: 12 48.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I was talking more generally about religion, but can you honestly say you engage in none of the above? Are you denying the Jehovah's Witnesses history of disfellowships and excommunication?

Have you ever asked JW's about that or just heard one sided sob stories off the net? That appears to be where our "history" is recorded. Can you make a valid judgment about anything with only one side of a story? The sob stories are a dime a dozen, but no one is interested in hearing the other side. People will believe whatever they want to believe.

The Bible is the source of all our beliefs and activities. When we 'disfellowship' someone it is because they have done something to break a law of God with the intention of getting away with it.....for the most part it is because of immorality, but no one is disfellowshipped who is genuinely repentant. "Genuine" doesn't mean 'crocodile tears'...it means working hard to never let that happen again. We encourage and applaud repentant wrongdoers as we are all imperfect ourselves. Disfellowshipping is based on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.

That removal from fellowship is not a physical removal from our meetings, as anyone is free to come and go.....but it is a clear message from the congregation that the person is out of favor with God and needs to do something about it. We offer no fellowship with that person.

Of course they can - but religion is a system of indoctrination. I was raised by atheist parents who were open-minded enough to send me to a series of religious schools. Can you say you would do the same?

Anything a parent wants to teach their child can be considered indoctrination.....even atheism.
What makes religion any worse? Last time I looked, Bible principles were better than no principles at all.

Your parents must have been a trifle sadistic to do that to you
confused0012.gif
.... "a series of religious schools" eh? .....was it open-mindedness or was it the superior education they were after? Most religious schools have better teachers and higher academic achievment than public schools. Better standard of student behavior too I'd imagine...?

And do you think none of the methods used to teach your children have any impact on their long term decision making or wellbeing?

No more so than any other parents' impact on their children. What methods do you think we use?
confused0067.gif

We try to keep our teaching light and enjoyable. Our kids sometimes like to dress up as Bible characters and act out a Bible story...some of them are hilarious.

Is that the most mature response you can muster?

It was a response in kind I thought.
confused0072.gif


Then educate me. What do you do to ensure the open-mindedness of your children and encourage them to question authority, including the Church?

That depends on what you mean by "open mindedness"...we will not go to extremes either way. Our meetings involve covering topics that are pertinent to everyday life as well as Bible highlights so we cover a wide range of subjects. The emphasis is on balance and there is NO ritual in our weekly meetings. Our children participate in the meeting, adding comments about the topic as their understanding allows.You seem to have a very dark view of what we do. I was raised Anglican but hated it.....I have been a Witness for 45 years and I love being part of this global family. Are we perfect....?....nope...but I think we try harder than most.

And what do you do to foster open-mindedness? What are the dangers and how do you teach them?

We are very trusting of one another so we warn our children about how the world operates so that they can be aware of unscrupulous people and their motives. We teach them about the moderate consumption of alcohol and good choices for entertainment, as well as the responsibility to respect older ones. We aim to raise balanced kids with respect for themselves and with a healthy respect for God's standards. We teach them to try and avoid regrets, but that mistakes are not the end of the world. None of us are perfect.

And do you encourage this questioning in your children? What do you tell your children after the door is closed?

The same as what I tell them when the door is open.My kids were always free to ask whatever they wanted to with no taboo subjects. If they attend school, how could there be?

And you in no way try to influence that decision?

Of course I would want to influence their decisions. I am their mother and no one has more of a right to do that than parents. But no matter how much I wanted to influence them, they had to make their own choices and reap what they sowed. Lessons don't have to be hard or painful, but some kids can't learn any other way. :(

Anything else you'd like to know? :D
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
This thread is about “creationists”, not about the theory of evolution.

I am trying to not to derail this thread, something you weren’t able to do when I started a thread on creationist bring evidences for creation of man (Adam).

Its hard to keep up.
confused0036.gif
But also hard to talk about creation and not evolution when you are in this forum....

You want my evidence for creation....? Here you go....

images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


images
images
images
images


And that's just birds......
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Its hard to keep up.
confused0036.gif
But also hard to talk about creation and not evolution when you are in this forum....

You want my evidence for creation....? Here you go....

images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


images
images
images
images


And that's just birds......
Again, you are posting photos of birds, without context, and certainly no implication that they have do with god or his supposed “creation”.

Where are the pictures of god?

Without evidences of god, there are no evidences that god created anything.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Its hard to keep up.
confused0036.gif
But also hard to talk about creation and not evolution when you are in this forum....

You want my evidence for creation....? Here you go....

images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


images
images
images
images


And that's just birds......
I see that you still do not understand the concept of evidence. Evidence needs to be able to cut both ways. What would have to be different about those pictures to be evidence against creation? If you can't name one those pictures aren't evidence for creation either.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I see that you still do not understand the concept of evidence. Evidence needs to be able to cut both ways. What would have to be different about those pictures to be evidence against creation? If you can't name one those pictures aren't evidence for creation either.

I dunno, we got a lot of evidence about what jw does to a person.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
In addition to all the other things wrong with your JW beliefs, we can now add one more - hypocrisy.

You drive cars, fly in airplanes, use computers, etc. If you were honest, you would eschew technological advancements and live like the Amish do. But you aren't.
Maybe it is just a advanced case of metasticized cog dis?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I just can't quite get through to the godless around here
confused0075.gif
....I am the one with a "belief system" and proud of it. I see in creation the hand of a genius so I don't assume that genius needs no intelligence. I cannot see complex organisms with specifically coded DNA as having been accidents or flukes because there are just too many beneficial flukes to be accepted as operating in reality.

You guys are suppose to be the ones with the "overwhelming evidence" to undo my faith in an Intelligent Designer.....yet no evidence presented to date comes close to being anything but wishful thinking and educated guessing.

Maybe it might help if you were prepared to follow discussions through to the end. You and I were having quite a rational discussion about the nature of theories in science and its bearing on criticisms of the theory of evolution, ending with my post 216 on Wednesday, which invited a reply from you. (I sent you an indirect reminder in my post 276, on Thursday.)

Post 216 ended by me saying :" If you are willing to discuss evolution in terms of the evidence for and against, and to stop introducing "proof" into the discussion, I shall be happy to continue."

Do you intend to continue our discussion? Or do I take the lack of response to mean that you refuse to stop introducing "proof" into the discussion, and therefore you are not willing to continue? I am happy either way, though if it is the latter readers will be able to draw certain conclusions about you.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Again, you are posting photos of birds, without context, and certainly no implication that they have do with god or his supposed “creation”.

Where are the pictures of god?

Without evidences of god, there are no evidences that god created anything.

The photos speak volumes gnostic.....they don't need words. I can provide braille if you have a visual problem.....

My 'pictures of God' might be hiding in the same place as the substantiated evidence you have for macro-evolution. :D

My 'pictures of God' are like pictures of the wind....you only see what results from its presence.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Maybe it might help if you were prepared to follow discussions through to the end. You and I were having quite a rational discussion about the nature of theories in science and its bearing on criticisms of the theory of evolution, ending with my post 216 on Wednesday, which invited a reply from you. (I sent you an indirect reminder in my post 276, on Thursday.)

Post 216 ended by me saying :" If you are willing to discuss evolution in terms of the evidence for and against, and to stop introducing "proof" into the discussion, I shall be happy to continue."

Do you intend to continue our discussion? Or do I take the lack of response to mean that you refuse to stop introducing "proof" into the discussion, and therefore you are not willing to continue? I am happy either way, though if it is the latter readers will be able to draw certain conclusions about you.

I am sorry but I have been occupied on other threads.
ashamed0005.gif
Please don't take it personally....I enjoy spiritual topics so much more than these kinds of discussions.....but now if I may continue.....I can only stop using "proof" in a discussion if science can stop assuming that we don't need any before we indoctrinate children with godless theories that are basically unsubstantiated. :shrug: The "evidence" furnished by science needs interpretation much like the Bible does. So how do you decide that the "evidence" is sound enough to bet your life on?

You see this is what I don't understand......"Belief" is required when no proof can be furnished...this applies to both sides of this issue. But only one side will admit to holding "beliefs", whilst the other side seems to be in denial...can you explain how this happened?
confused0007.gif
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The photos speak volumes gnostic.....they don't need words. I can provide braille if you have a visual problem.....

My 'pictures of God' might be hiding in the same place as the substantiated evidence you have for macro-evolution. :D

My 'pictures of God' are like pictures of the wind....you only see what results from its presence.

All of this, sounds like a combination of baseless conjecture, wild imagination, primitive superstition and wishful thinking.

Those photos of birds only show the different families of bird species exist in the real and very natural world, and not of them are evidences for your imaginary God or God’s creation.

There is no link between god and birds, because the contexts are not there; those photos don’t even imply “God”.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
All of this, sounds like a combination of baseless conjecture, wild imagination, primitive superstition and wishful thinking.

Those photos of birds only show the different families of bird species exist in the real and very natural world, and not of them are evidences for your imaginary God or God’s creation.

There is no link between god and birds, because the contexts are not there; those photos don’t even imply “God”.

sign0147.gif
sign0075.gif
 

Cacotopia

Let's go full Trottle
I like the dictionary definition.

theory
ˈθɪəri/
noun

  1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    "Darwin's theory of evolution"
    synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; More
    • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
      "a theory of education"
    • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
      "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
Funny how science has a different meaning of the word.
confused0006.gif
I can't imagine why.

Have you seen the dictionary used by lawyers? Any common word you can think of doesn't have the same meaning in a legal dictionary, if that's the case you are making then it is a weak one.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I am sorry but I have been occupied on other threads.
ashamed0005.gif
Please don't take it personally....I enjoy spiritual topics so much more than these kinds of discussions.....but now if I may continue.....I can only stop using "proof" in a discussion if science can stop assuming that we don't need any before we indoctrinate children with godless theories that are basically unsubstantiated. :shrug: The "evidence" furnished by science needs interpretation much like the Bible does. So how do you decide that the "evidence" is sound enough to bet your life on?

You see this is what I don't understand......"Belief" is required when no proof can be furnished...this applies to both sides of this issue. But only one side will admit to holding "beliefs", whilst the other side seems to be in denial...can you explain how this happened?
confused0007.gif
Can't be done. As I have already explained, with examples from both physics and chemistry, theories of science cannot, ever, be proved. It is a simple matter of logic. It applies regardless of the subject matter of the theory.

Furthermore, all theories of science are "godless", in the sense that God does not feature in any scientific theory. But then, that applies equally to French grammar or music theory. I have yet to hear anybody complain that teaching French grammar or music theory - or even Newtons Laws of motion - is "godless".

Why the attempt to create a double standard, specifically to rule out of court the theory of evolution?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Its hard to keep up.
confused0036.gif
But also hard to talk about creation and not evolution when you are in this forum....

You want my evidence for creation....? Here you go....

images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


images
images
images
images


And that's just birds......

Birds are beautiful...Deeje and are fruit of God's love...;)

...But thinking of the toucan's beak, it's a relief to know it was not designed by our Lord...

I mean...that shape is disturbing
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Can't be done. As I have already explained, with examples from both physics and chemistry, theories of science cannot, ever, be proved. It is a simple matter of logic. It applies regardless of the subject matter of the theory.

Furthermore, all theories of science are "godless", in the sense that God does not feature in any scientific theory. But then, that applies equally to French grammar or music theory. I have yet to hear anybody complain that teaching French grammar or music theory - or even Newtons Laws of motion - is "godless".

Why the attempt to create a double standard, specifically to rule out of court the theory of evolution?
For some reason that scientific idea is much more threatening than a moving Earth, though that idea did put Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life, or even a spherical Earth. They seem to think that without "original sin" the crucifixion was pointless (it was anyway). That they can't seem to understand the idea that someone is guilty because their almost endlessly great grandfather ate a piece of fruit when he didn't know any better paints their god as an extremely immoral being is beyond me.

Perhaps they do realize that their beliefs are a house of cards and if one card goes the whole house collapses.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Have you seen the dictionary used by lawyers? Any common word you can think of doesn't have the same meaning in a legal dictionary, if that's the case you are making then it is a weak one.

How true, the Vice of Equivocation.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
For some reason that scientific idea is much more threatening than a moving Earth, though that idea did put Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life, or even a spherical Earth. They seem to think that without "original sin" the crucifixion was pointless (it was anyway). That they can't seem to understand the idea that someone is guilty because their almost endlessly great grandfather ate a piece of fruit when he didn't know any better paints their god as an extremely immoral being is beyond me.

Perhaps they do realize that their beliefs are a house of cards and if one card goes the whole house collapses.

Hence the inability of the creo to ever concede even the least
point. Even one irrelevant to their case.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
For some reason that scientific idea is much more threatening than a moving Earth, though that idea did put Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life, or even a spherical Earth. They seem to think that without "original sin" the crucifixion was pointless (it was anyway). That they can't seem to understand the idea that someone is guilty because their almost endlessly great grandfather ate a piece of fruit when he didn't know any better paints their god as an extremely immoral being is beyond me.

Perhaps they do realize that their beliefs are a house of cards and if one card goes the whole house collapses.
Could be. I'd like to hear what Deeje has to say about it.

I am personally unclear why original sin, or any other any Christian doctrine, has to depend on life - uniquely among all the phenomena in creation - requiring supernatural tinkering to override the laws of nature (which the believer presumably regards as made by God anyway).

P.S. The spherical earth however is a red herring. Eratosthenes measured its circumference back in 300BC and any sailor must have known it was at least curved, much earlier than him! And there is no suggestion in history that the church ever said anything to the contrary, so far as I know.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Its hard to keep up.
confused0036.gif
But also hard to talk about creation and not evolution when you are in this forum....

You want my evidence for creation....? Here you go....

images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


images
images
images
images


And that's just birds......

OK, exactly *how* is this evidence for creation as opposed to, say, evolution? Try to be more specific about the mechanisms of each and how you expect the results of the two to differ. Then show how the pictures show results more in keeping with creation than with evolution.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Have you ever asked JW's about that or just heard one sided sob stories off the net? That appears to be where our "history" is recorded. Can you make a valid judgment about anything with only one side of a story? The sob stories are a dime a dozen, but no one is interested in hearing the other side. People will believe whatever they want to believe.

The Bible is the source of all our beliefs and activities. When we 'disfellowship' someone it is because they have done something to break a law of God with the intention of getting away with it.....for the most part it is because of immorality, but no one is disfellowshipped who is genuinely repentant. "Genuine" doesn't mean 'crocodile tears'...it means working hard to never let that happen again. We encourage and applaud repentant wrongdoers as we are all imperfect ourselves. Disfellowshipping is based on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.

That removal from fellowship is not a physical removal from our meetings, as anyone is free to come and go.....but it is a clear message from the congregation that the person is out of favor with God and needs to do something about it. We offer no fellowship with that person.



Anything a parent wants to teach their child can be considered indoctrination.....even atheism.
What makes religion any worse? Last time I looked, Bible principles were better than no principles at all.

Your parents must have been a trifle sadistic to do that to you
confused0012.gif
.... "a series of religious schools" eh? .....was it open-mindedness or was it the superior education they were after? Most religious schools have better teachers and higher academic achievment than public schools. Better standard of student behavior too I'd imagine...?



No more so than any other parents' impact on their children. What methods do you think we use?
confused0067.gif

We try to keep our teaching light and enjoyable. Our kids sometimes like to dress up as Bible characters and act out a Bible story...some of them are hilarious.



It was a response in kind I thought.
confused0072.gif




That depends on what you mean by "open mindedness"...we will not go to extremes either way. Our meetings involve covering topics that are pertinent to everyday life as well as Bible highlights so we cover a wide range of subjects. The emphasis is on balance and there is NO ritual in our weekly meetings. Our children participate in the meeting, adding comments about the topic as their understanding allows.You seem to have a very dark view of what we do. I was raised Anglican but hated it.....I have been a Witness for 45 years and I love being part of this global family. Are we perfect....?....nope...but I think we try harder than most.



We are very trusting of one another so we warn our children about how the world operates so that they can be aware of unscrupulous people and their motives. We teach them about the moderate consumption of alcohol and good choices for entertainment, as well as the responsibility to respect older ones. We aim to raise balanced kids with respect for themselves and with a healthy respect for God's standards. We teach them to try and avoid regrets, but that mistakes are not the end of the world. None of us are perfect.



The same as what I tell them when the door is open.My kids were always free to ask whatever they wanted to with no taboo subjects. If they attend school, how could there be?



Of course I would want to influence their decisions. I am their mother and no one has more of a right to do that than parents. But no matter how much I wanted to influence them, they had to make their own choices and reap what they sowed. Lessons don't have to be hard or painful, but some kids can't learn any other way. :(

Anything else you'd like to know? :D

The public schools in Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore
produce much higher achieving students than any "religious"
school in the USA.

JW kids are cautioned to avoid higher education.
Specifically and overtly to keep them in the cult.
 
Top