ChatterBank0 min ago
In This Science Age, Do People Have Faith In An Invisible God Almighty?
83 Answers
If they have no faith in Him now, could we expect a sudden burst of faith in the near future, when the worst comes and they are obliged to acknowledge their own helplessness and that of modern science?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If there were alternative methods for Blood Transfusion that were "exactly the same" but "much safer", everyone would be doing them -- or at least the method would be more widely used. This at least makes your claims propagandist, and certainly somewhat inaccurate. The current medical status is closer to "about as safe except in exceptional circumstances" which is certainly a far distance away from "much safer".
I've had a chance to glance at the list of things that are allowed and not by JW's with regard to blood transfusion. It seems somewhat arbitrary, does it not? For instance donated blood is not allowed -- unless it has first passed through an autonomous heart-lung machine (source: "The Watchtower, 2000, p30). I have to say that even allowing for the fact that there is a scriptural basis for disallowing blood transfusions -- which is itself disputed -- I'm not sure that the Bible then adds such caveats. Strikes me as very ad-hoc and completely without scriptural basis. Which is surprising since this seems to be what you are so fond of using as the basis of your arguments, such as they are.
Actually the entire basis ought to be accepted as completely the wrong starting point. This applies not just to JWs by the way, but to all faiths. If you start your arguments by asserting that there is a God as a first proposition without basis, then you can -- and generally seem to manage to -- argue just about everything, including the contradictory or the arbitrary. And the starting point itself is wrong, or at least is made to be unchallengeable. Such arguments aren't even worth entering into, whatever form they have.
So, to summarize: "there is a God." "Where is the evidence?" "All around us." "Show me?" "It's there, in front of you..." ... can you not see that this is a) a circular argument, and b) not a very persuasive one? Also these assertions that everyone else is blind are rude, obnoxious and poor debating style. Something many people of faith seem to miss is that many atheists are open to persuasion and might change their views accordingly -- even Richard Dawkins. It might be worth making more effort to persuade them, which includes both being more polite and tactful and also, crucially, providing tangible evidence that admits no other, simpler, interpretation. If you can do that, I'm all ears. Though, in fairness, I'm not exactly trembling with anticipation...
I've had a chance to glance at the list of things that are allowed and not by JW's with regard to blood transfusion. It seems somewhat arbitrary, does it not? For instance donated blood is not allowed -- unless it has first passed through an autonomous heart-lung machine (source: "The Watchtower, 2000, p30). I have to say that even allowing for the fact that there is a scriptural basis for disallowing blood transfusions -- which is itself disputed -- I'm not sure that the Bible then adds such caveats. Strikes me as very ad-hoc and completely without scriptural basis. Which is surprising since this seems to be what you are so fond of using as the basis of your arguments, such as they are.
Actually the entire basis ought to be accepted as completely the wrong starting point. This applies not just to JWs by the way, but to all faiths. If you start your arguments by asserting that there is a God as a first proposition without basis, then you can -- and generally seem to manage to -- argue just about everything, including the contradictory or the arbitrary. And the starting point itself is wrong, or at least is made to be unchallengeable. Such arguments aren't even worth entering into, whatever form they have.
So, to summarize: "there is a God." "Where is the evidence?" "All around us." "Show me?" "It's there, in front of you..." ... can you not see that this is a) a circular argument, and b) not a very persuasive one? Also these assertions that everyone else is blind are rude, obnoxious and poor debating style. Something many people of faith seem to miss is that many atheists are open to persuasion and might change their views accordingly -- even Richard Dawkins. It might be worth making more effort to persuade them, which includes both being more polite and tactful and also, crucially, providing tangible evidence that admits no other, simpler, interpretation. If you can do that, I'm all ears. Though, in fairness, I'm not exactly trembling with anticipation...
LG, it is apparent from GL's ramblings that his problem is that to his way of seeing things what he believes is fact. I think if put to the test his subconcious and possibly rational brain would balk at risking his life to prove that what he believes is 'truth'. At least he won't be disappointed when he doesn't go to heaven after his death. I recently read a novel in which an Orthodox Jewish family lived according to what was ordained for them in the OT. Everything they did was considered as to whether it was permitted and how it was done was according to the OT. Fortunately they were only subsidiary characters otherwise little would have happened and the story would not have progressed. I think did gain a little insight into how really profound believers see the world in terms of their belief, it seems like being born into solitary confinement and never knowing it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.