It's been a while :-)

[**bustysinclaire**]

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no1-2018-jan-feb/bible-guidance-relevant/

A topic that is being offered for discussion this month. Some may find it interesting xxx

[esme7crom0]

Someone mentioned about religion in schools my second eldest is taking her gcse’s in months and Religious studies now covers a major piece on Islam along with Christianity. Islamic faith is one of the biggest religions in the country so the teacher said at parents eve.

My daughter says it’s really hard and everyone is struggling with it I remember when Religion was a relatively easy subject.

A bit ot but thought it interesting to add how the religious studies curriculum for students has changed.

[**bustysinclaire**]

Esme,

I can understand that it would be really hard, there are thousands of different faiths, so different gods and dos and donts of each faith. Take budism i found that really complicated to take in, i probably now haven't got it all properly i my head, so i keep books at hand to refer to any time i need it. Xx

[cee-dee]

I'm being shunned am I? Heck, I'm worried...........

[**bustysinclaire**]

---

@cee-deewrote:

I'm being shunned am I? Heck, I'm worried...........

---

Why noy try amicably posting something worthy of a reply then CD, 

Have a read of this, it may answer some quiestions.

Which religion is true? Just for you 

The Bible’s answer

Illustrating how to tell the difference between those who practice true religion and those who do not, the Bible says: “By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they?” (Matthew 7:16) Just as you can distinguish a grapevine from a thornbush by what it produces, you can distinguish true religion from false by its fruits, or by these identifying features.

1. True religion teaches the truth that is based on the Bible, not on human philosophies. (John 4:24; 17:17) This includes religious truths about the soul and the hope of everlasting life on a paradise earth. (Psalm 37:29; Isaiah 35:5, 6; Ezekiel 18:4) It also does not hold back from exposing religious falsehood.—Matthew 15:9; 23:27, 28.

2. True religion helps people to know God, including teaching them his name, Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; John 17:3, 6) It does not teach that he is incomprehensible or aloof; rather, it teaches that he wants us to have a relationship with him.—James 4:8.

3. True religion highlights Jesus Christ as the one through whom God grants salvation. (Acts 4:10, 12) Its members obey Jesus’ commands and strive to follow his example.—John 13:15; 15:14.

4. True religion focuses on God’s Kingdom as mankind’s only hope. Its members actively tell others about that Kingdom.—Matthew 10:7; 24:14.

5. True religion promotes unselfish love. (John 13:35) It teaches respect for all ethnic groups and welcomes people from all races, cultures, languages, and backgrounds. (Acts 10:34, 35) Moved by love, its members do not go to war.—Micah 4:3; 1 John 3:11, 12.

6. True religion has no paid clergy, and it does not give high-sounding religious titles to any of its members.—Matthew 23:8-12; 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

7. True religion is completely neutral in political affairs. (John 17:16; 18:36) However, its members respect and obey the government where they live, in harmony with the Bible’s command: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar [representing the civil authority], but God’s things to God.”—Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1, 2.

8. True religion is a way of life, not just a ritual or a formality. Its members adhere to the Bible’s high moral standards in all aspects of life. (Ephesians 5:3-5; 1 John 3:18) Rather than being grim, though, they find joy in worshipping “the happy God.”—1 Timothy 1:11.

9. Those who practice true religion will be in the minority. (Matthew 7:13, 14) Members of the true religion are often looked down on, ridiculed, and persecuted for doing God’s will.—Matthew 5:10-12.

True religion is not just ‘the right religion for me’

There is a danger in choosing a religion based solely on how it makes us feel. The Bible foretold a time when people would “surround themselves with [religious] teachers to have their ears tickled.” (2 Timothy 4:3) In contrast, the Bible encourages us to follow “the religion that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father,” even if that religion is unpopular.—James 1:27, footnote; John 15:18, 19.

[cee-dee]

Why don't you post something by way of a proper discussion around a subject you imposed on the board?

You've not discussed ANY of the points brought up but you keep on posting links and quotes which have little or no bearing on the questions raised.

You keep on posting things about the Bible, things which cannot possibly be true without some sort of magic wand being used.

OK, you believe all that stuff and that's fine for you but continually posting things you claim as fact without any back-up or explanation just isn't on when you originally asked for discussion.

Just look at your post about A & E :- "I can confirm that Adam and Eve were created in the year 4026BCE".

A & E, were supposed to be the first humans, created by your jehovah. The way you posted that is as if it was a fact. It isn't a fact. It cannot possibly be true. Never mind "what if it is" or "It might be true". It isn't true. It cannot possibly be true. You can believe it to be true just as you can believe what you like but attempting to impose your beliefs in/on a board such as this isn't on.

Your OP contained a link to something you said was being offered for discussion and you said others might find it interesting. In spite of many viewings, no-one responded for nearly 14 hours. So, no-one wanted to join you in discussing?

So, now we're at the point of "being worthy" or not? Worthy if it's in agreement with you? Hmmmm, some discussion.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Even from my stance as an atheist I have a problem over how ‘life’ started.  

From a scientific angle we don’t know how life on Earth started - until that is answered and can be demonstrated then I guess it’s not that outrageous to claim that life was created by what could be called God. 

Too many scientists, with far more knowledge on the subject than myself, do believe in God to be able to just dismiss the notion as nonsense. 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

[suzieseaside]

Interesting link creeky, and I agree with your first sentence too.  We simply don't have absolute proof about the very beginning either way and even Dawkins, a strong atheist, has said that. 

However, we may be able to answer that in the future.  I half-read a very interesting article in New Scientist at the Doc's surgery (never seen a NS in there before) but didn't get a chance to finish it.  Too honest to half inch it, though tempted!!  Maybe I'll just go back to the waiting room to finish it.

Then there is the type of God we might believe in - a personal God (which I don't) or what I think Dawkin's called an Ensteinian God.

Anyway, popped in to also say to Busty and CD - thanks for your replies.  I'm not ignoring them but had a hozzy appointment yesterday and a bit busy today and tomorrow. I can't answer in just one sentence, but when I do I will try to keep it as brief as possible. 

[cee-dee]

I read your link fully.

I think we're back to the old thing about when someone is unable to explain something, it therefore has to be the work of some wonderous being with supernatural powers?

How did life begin, that is the question. Up to now, no-one's been able to conclusively prove how it did.

Scientists suspect that initially a "right" combination of constituent chemicals found on this planet caused a very primitive form of life to form which gradually evolved from then on.

Up to now, they've not managed to find either the "right" chemicals or the "right" mixture......

Some people think (oh no, we're back to believe?) that meteorite or asteroid collision with the Earth brought the "right" mixture of amino acids allowing the formation of such a primitive form of life to begin from which everything else evolved.

Is either of the above scenarios a likely "explanation"? The answer is that logic dictates that it is possible. The proof of either hasn't happened yet.

[**bustysinclaire**]

---

@cee-deewrote:

Why don't you post something by way of a proper discussion around a subject you imposed on the board?

You've not discussed ANY of the points brought up but you keep on posting links and quotes which have little or no bearing on the questions raised.

You keep on posting things about the Bible, things which cannot possibly be true without some sort of magic wand being used.

OK, you believe all that stuff and that's fine for you but continually posting things you claim as fact without any back-up or explanation just isn't on when you originally asked for discussion.

Just look at your post about A & E :- "I can confirm that Adam and Eve were created in the year 4026BCE".

A & E, were supposed to be the first humans, created by your jehovah. The way you posted that is as if it was a fact. It isn't a fact. It cannot possibly be true. Never mind "what if it is" or "It might be true". It isn't true. It cannot possibly be true. You can believe it to be true just as you can believe what you like but attempting to impose your beliefs in/on a board such as this isn't on.

Your OP contained a link to something you said was being offered for discussion and you said others might find it interesting. In spite of many viewings, no-one responded for nearly 14 hours. So, no-one wanted to join you in discussing?

So, now we're at the point of "being worthy" or not? Worthy if it's in agreement with you? Hmmmm, some discussion.

---

Right CD. I'm sorry but I am only human.

WORTHY  as in being polite respectful and friendly I have found you none of those so why should I further discuss with you.  You say you post without insult and only fighting your corner, well to be honest (I agreed on that earlier but that was trying to be polite)  I have actually found you to be very rude, sarcastic and quite frankly for a seasoned poster who seems to have a good few friends I have found you absolutey horrendously ill mannered and full of contempt, if this wasnt  just a discussion board I'd say a bully..

Other posters, even though they clearly dont agree with me, and have put their point of view across they have done so with what I feel a great respect and politeness. 

I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and I respect their opinions completely there are some really lovely posters on here., who have been kind enough and friendly enough to paricipate, but you CD whether you care or not, have been not at all nice. Whith friends like you CD who needs enemies lol.

I have answered other posters questions which the have politey asked, I have also given you explanations to certain points you have raised I havent expected you to agree with them. I posted I did not impose, you neednt have joined in, if no one else joined in then that is fine, I dont take offence. You are the one that has actually made this thread very unpleasant by contempt.  Now CD you have done your worst so tet it be.

I thank everyone for contributing, especially on a subject that many do not wish to show interest in. Im happy if it has run its course.

I apologise to everyone else if they feel they have again been made to witness unpleasantness on this board. 

[cee-dee]

Well that was a thoroughly unpleasant post.

From the outset you were asked to explain your viewpoint but responded with JW links and statements as a fact when they're not facts at all and as with the content of those links, it all sound like a "ram it down yer throat" rant with loadsa quotes, mostly taken out of context and given interpretations to suit the JW doctrine.

I just do not agree with a belief or the inexplicable being explained away as being the work of some all powerful being.

[**bustysinclaire**]

Well.

I now feel awfull, and ashamed of myself, so good night.

[suzieseaside]

Don't fret, everyone knows that discussions about religion (and politics) can get heated on both sides.

Poor old Sir David Attenborough gets plenty of hate mail wishing he would burn in hell because he doesn't credit God in his documentaries about evolution

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4345830/Sir-David-Attenborough-I-get-hate-mail-tellin...

About 'intelligent design', he said when asked why he did not give credit to God:

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds.

"I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball.

"The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs.

"I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Food for thought perhaps?

He doesn't deny a possible existence of God, but sees the evolution of living things as fact.  This is a separate issue from abiogenesis (life arising from non-living matter) and I agree with him.  But each to our own beliefs.

He manages to be very gracious about his beliefs in this short clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI7f3xVgZdA

[cee-dee]

Further to my post at #202......:-

On the subject of life beginning with a mix of Earth-bound chemicals, Darwin theorised that life began in "warm ponds" on a very early Earth and over eons of tme, all life evolved.

It seems he might not have been far from the truth. Current thinking is that the earliest form of life (microscopic bacteria?) began over three billion years ago.

Scientist have been trying to replicate what they think happened but although they've made progress, life hasn't yet been created. However, they have managed to create some of the "building blocks" of life.

We've all (????) heard of Deoxyribonecleic acid (DNA) but how many have heard of RNA, PNA, TNA and GNA?

Sooner or later (?) they will manage to create a form of life from chemical constituents which would have been found on Earth. From that, All life evolved.

[**bustysinclaire**]

---

@suzieseasidewrote:

Don't fret, everyone knows that discussions about religion (and politics) can get heated on both sides.

Poor old Sir David Attenborough gets plenty of hate mail wishing he would burn in hell because he doesn't credit God in his documentaries about evolution

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4345830/Sir-David-Attenborough-I-get-hate-mail-tellin...

About 'intelligent design', he said when asked why he did not give credit to God:

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds.

"I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball.

"The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs.

"I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Food for thought perhaps?

He doesn't deny a possible existence of God, but sees the evolution of living things as fact.  This is a separate issue from abiogenesis (life arising from non-living matter) and I agree with him.  But each to our own beliefs.

He manages to be very gracious about his beliefs in this short clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI7f3xVgZdA

---

Thank you for your reply susie,  losing  my patience and spouting off isn't really something to be proud of.   Xxx

Apart from the life began via evolution I find David Attinboroughs work with nature wonderful.  

To think he gets hate mail is terrible, no one deserves treatment like that, it is utterley disgraceful.

As it has been said individuals are quite within their rights to their own beliefs and opinions. And David A is very gracious when voicing his opinions. Certain posters on here need to take a leaf outof his book. Xxx

I took note of the telegraph link and the youtube one I have actually seen before xxx

I can certainly understand why the story/account of his about the burrowing worm would stir great emotion, but there are also many fantastic and most beautiful storys/accounts of what some may call natures mircales that many would credit God with.

[cee-dee]

To answer the question "Do some people still believe the Earth is flat?", the answer is "YES".

One bloke believes it is ""Do I believe the Earth is shaped like a Frisbee? I believe it is," he said in one video. "Do I know for sure? No. That's why I want to go up in space."

https://news.sky.com/story/daredevil-mad-mike-hughes-blasts-off-in-homemade-steam-rocket-11303681

A belief is not a fact and that goes for everything.

[upthecreekyetagain]

When does something become a ‘fact’ - is it when we believe what someone else says is the truth or is it when we see something with our own eyes.

If it is the former then those who believe in a particular God because of what others have said or written do consider that the existence of God is a fact - likewise someone who believes those who tell us that dinosaur bones are x million years old treat that information as a fact.

If however it is the latter then very few can say they have seen or experienced the evidence of many scientific ‘facts’ and therefore those ‘facts’ should actually be called hypotheses.

[cee-dee]

Hey come on, a fact is a proven fact. Some facts are easier for which to provide the proof than others.

If you put two nuts on the table and your friend put two more nuts on the table, it's a proven fact that there are four nuts on the table.

The thing is, if one bloke put a nut on the table and so did another bloke but this time both blokes broke the nuts open, would you say there were four things on the table or would it be two nuts and two nutcases....?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-deewrote:

Hey come on, a fact is a proven fact. Some facts are easier for which to provide the proof than others.

If you put two nuts on the table and your friend put two more nuts on the table, it's a proven fact that there are four nuts on the table.

The thing is, if one bloke put a nut on the table and so did another bloke but this time both blokes broke the nuts open, would you say there were four things on the table or would it be two nuts and two nutcases....?

---

If you define a fact as something that can be seen or experienced then in your scenario it would be a fact that there were four nuts on the table.

If however you were describing the nuts being put on the table over the phone then for me to consider that a fact I would be defining a ‘fact’ as something I believe to be true based on what somebody is telling me.

Carbon dating is an example of the latter - I’m happy to believe that somebody has proven that the method works and is reliable - I believe that someone using the method has shown that a dinosaur fossil is millions of years old - from what I’ve been told I believe that bones over millions of years turn into fossils.

 As far as I am concerned therefore I believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago is a ‘fact’ - that fact is based however on my belief in and trust of a number individuals I’ve never met and know little or anything about.

Believing as I do thousands of facts that I have never personally experienced or seen proven then who am I to say that someone who believes in a God based on what they’ve been told or read is foolish or wrong in their belief.  I may believe they are wrong but that doesn’t make it a fact.

[cee-dee]

True, but with all things there's a train of thought, a line of reasoning.

Thinking about things will give you both and the line of reasoning will lead you to accepting or denying whatever it is you're on about.

With some things, following the line of reasoning laid out by others will lead you following their drift and seeing how their conclusion was worked out and with many things you can reproduce their findings for yourself.

Other things requiring some enormous set-up are not so easy. You can follow their line of reasoning and also follow that of others who were/are able to reproduce it and produce the same results.

For instance, we can follow the line of reasoning to see how an Atom bomb is created but reproducing it is beyond us so we accept the thought process which leads up to the production and we know "it works" so the production of an Atom bomb and its effect is therefore a fact.

Some inexplicable things can be explained only so far but around them are some actual facts.

For instance, a bloke out playing golf gets struck by lightning and is killed. He happened to be a bit of a character in business and some described his death as "an act of god" and "he got his just deserts".

Others would reason that he was out on a wide open fairway and was the highest object for some distance. They reasoned that he was close to a golf buggy with an open umbrella and was holding/swinging a metal golf club too so they reasoned that he was just unfortunate (and foolish) to be out in the open during a thunderstorm and was unfortunate to get struck by a random bolt of lightning.

The facts are that he was out in the open, he was the highest object for quite some distance and he definitely was struck by lightning. Whether it was an "act of god" isn't a fact. It's conjecture and a belief by some.

Now then, believing something written by unknown authors, compiled and edited by other unknown authors is up to the person reading it? Some have faith in what they read, they want to believe it. They want others to believe it and attempt to convince others that what they believe is a fact. It isn't. It's a fact that they believe it, the truth of it isn't a fact.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Lightning strikes the highest point is a myth not a fact 😉