by Auchmull 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Very often JW's very early in the study talk about the influence of Satan on people. How Satan doesn't want people finding out the truth, and that Satan will even influence friends and relatives to turn you away from your spiritual investigations.
I am curious, Auchmull, has your study leader brought up the influence of Satan? Are you convinced that your doubts and confusion are from Satan?
Again please set aside objections to the word "cult" but consider the experienced counsel of these sites: Characteristics of a Destructive Cult
and Checklist of Cult Characteristics
To be sure many Christian websites would define cults as those that deny this or that doctrine or who "twist scripture", dismiss that as sectarian propaganda. The best help avoiding the trappings of high control groups is found among among health care professionals like those at the AFF (second link above) and others like Steve Hassan.
Consider the possibility that WE ALL HAVE IT ALL WRONG. Don't fall into the trap of thinking, "Well, if evolution isn't right, then the Bible must be right." It is equally possible that evolution, creation, the Bible, the Bahgavad Gita, the Koran, the Book of Morons and every sentence ever spoken and/or written is completely 100% wrong, off base, false and so on, including this sentence! It's like we got it in our heads that SOMEONE, at least one person, religion or ideology (especially if it's mine, right?) is the correct one, when there is no reason in the world to assume such a crazy thing. It's just as likely if not more so, that we are all alone in the universe, we have always been here (in some form or another) and we will always be here, but we have no idea how we got here. We may just be an uncaused phenomenon, not created by anything intelligent, but not necessarily "not created" at all in any sense. We could be a little bit of everything, or none of nothing. So, don't buy into something just because you haven't yet joined the crowd of people who have all bought into something. Don't think that there is some value in having your beliefs established and your mind made up about anything. It actually seems to be the prudent course to just wait and see what happens, rather than placing your bet on some finite number. There is no shame in not betting at all and just being an observer at the roulette table, because when the wheel stops, the house is going to win and all of the people who placed their bets on some stupid religion or ideology will be losers, except for the ones humble enough to admit, and ADMIT WITH PRIDE, "I JUST DON'T KNOW." Shawn A man with no answers and proud of it!
I read about Isaiah prophesying the fall of Babylon, then found arguments that the latter part of Isaiah was written AFTER the fall... but the arguments were not well formed, so I'm left more confused.
The fall of Babylon is directly mentioned in the early portion of Isaiah (ch. 1-39), but this was probably not intended to be the fall in 539 BC but a much earlier one in 703 BC or so at the hands of the Medes and the Assyrians (during the reign of Merodach-Baladan). It is easy to forget that like Jerusalem, Babylon was desolated at different times by different people. And this was the time in which Isaiah lived. The portion of the book ch. 40-66 dates to much later and this is the portion that talks about Cyrus as Yahweh's anointed appointed to bring the Jews back home from exile. It is clear on literary and conceptual grounds that this was a separate anonymous writing that somehow got associated with the the book of Isaiah (evidently copied onto the same scroll). Nowhere does this author ever claim to be Isaiah; the name appears nowhere after ch. 39 (whereas it appeared 17 times in the preceding chapters).
The arguments against evolution seem flawed because their definition of evolution is so limited - they don't seem to deny adaptation and natural selection as legitimate mechanisms.
Correct. The recent articles show an embarassing ignorance of how evolution is supposed to work.
But hell -- I haven't seen evidence of a change from one species to another. Darwin's finches are still finches, those peppered moths are different, but still moths.
Darwin's finches are different species of finches. Belonging to different species, they don't interbred. But they clearly share a common ancestry arising from the adaptation of colonist finches to the island sometime in that past, with different colonists adapting to different ecological niches on the island. That is what helped Darwin realize that speciation is tied to adaptation. Plus we now know too that the process of colonization itself can dramatically skew the gene pool as well (e.g. founder's effect). All it takes is for a reproductive barrier to arise between two segments of a population to allow it to split into new populations that do not interbreed and which skew their genetic variation in different directions. Then over time, and geologically this is A LOT of time (e.g. much longer than you or I can observe in our lifetimes), the morphology typifying both populations may differ quite remarkably -- reflecting individual innovations accumulated over time that are not shared in common.
The Society misses the whole point by focusing on selective breeding (which can change morphology but without reproductive barriers) and mutations, which of course are a source of innovations, but which pale compared to the genetic variation already inherent in a population that can be exploited in different and changing ecological circumstances.
What are the explanations for homo habilis, erectus, etc? Other species (not related to humans) that died off?
The Society used to give an explanation in the older books, e.g. Australopithecus and Homo habilis are merely extinct apes and Homo erectus and neanderthalis are extinct races of man, ignoring the continuity between the varieties of hominids...
Wow Shawn10538,
Awesome comment.
Thank you to everyone who responded -- I'm on a lunch break, but I wanted to respond to some of you.
I will certainly investigate the 607 issue -- it hasn't been introduced in full to me, so I'm not even sure where to start.
The person I study with has not accused me of being under Satan's influence, and she's been very open about answering my questions.There are quite a few that we've "put off" until I get more of a foundation. (I'm not ready for Revelation yet, for example!)
As for evolution, different dog breeds are the same [sub]species -- canis lupis familiaris-- and there seems to be debate as to whether the finches are separate species, as they seem to be able to interbreed:
If we believe that two species share a common ancestor, then as one traces the species back in time, they should become closer and closer in form. At the branch point, the species should become ambiguous. That is precisely the point at which we find the Darwin's finches. They are in the process of separating, but they haven't completely done so at this point in time. The definition of the term "species" includes the presence of a fertility barrier between individuals of different species. In the case of Darwin's finches, those barriers are not completely formed yet, and there is a certain amount of documented hybridization between species. This also contributes to the ambiguity of the birds. --http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch2.html
I wanted to say more, but I'll be late. Thanks for letting me work through this stuff.
We may just be an uncaused phenomenon, not created by anything intelligent, but not necessarily "not created" at all in any sense.
This is what I've always tended to believe -- and it has caused me no end of existential anguish.
