by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I guess I should comment on the topic, while frivilously enjoying my Saturday afternoon
Basically I agree with most of what Tetra had to say, though the tone of his writing is a little more agressive than I would generally use, especially this point:
origins are outside the body of evolutionary theory. so WTF is the f-ING GODDAMN PROBLEM?!
But, metaphorically they "exist" as manifestations of human emotions which can be observed under certain conditions of attitude.
"manifestations" of x which can be observed under certain conditions of "attitude"? You can objectively observe respect? You can objectively observe attitude? If so, then you can observe reality that is not an "entity." I would be surprised if you attempt to support this assertion further.
You can experience respect subjectively, as either a receiver of respect or an emoter of respect. We refer to experiencing both at the same time as "mutual respect." But you cannot objectively detect respect, you cannot quantify it, you cannot test it, or falsify it, or physically observe it.
So, according to the rules of the Scientific Method is respect real?
No.
But, is it real?
Yes. You acknowledge that it is real, along with every other emotion, hundreds if not thousands of times a day. You hate me right now, and I can fully understand your frothing at the mouth. You can't reason away reality, though. Fortunately for me, by the rules of the Scientific Method hate isn't real, and that is the method you subscribe to.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
P.S. My walls are white. You can't see them. Nana-nana-boo-boo.
Why do you use the word "know"? You don't.
Is it possible for me to know something that you do not know?
Obviously.
All I need is an experience you have not had to know something you do not know.
Does that make me better than you?
No. Only different.
You would rather I be like you?
No thanks. If this discussion is representative of the world you live in, I much prefer mine.
Your assertion as to my lack of knowledge is not falsifiable, your statement is only your belief and cannot be substantiated without you sharing my knowledge (an impossibility). By your own tests, your logic and assertion fall flat. But it is encouraging that you have expressions of unfounded faith, even if they do relate only to my purposeful ignorance and ... what was it ... unenlightened thinking. Oddly, Shining One says similar things about those who disagree with him. As does Scholar. And Schizm, as I recall. Oh, yes, and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Bad form, Terry. Very bad form.
OldSoul
Hm. Terry insists that anything that does not exist as a physical entity is metaphorical. He doesn't deny the reality of respect, he only denies that it is a physical entity; once again unknowingly invoking rules of the Scientific Method to limit "existence" to that which is physical.
I have a solution! Let us call it "metaphorical reality" or "metaphysical reality" instead of "spiritual reality."
NOW I get it, Terry! You don't like the name LittleToe and I use for it. Makes sense now. Okay, how's this? "Blessed are the poor in [metaphor], for theirs is the kingdom of the [metaphorical] heavens." Can you peacefully cohabit a planet with people who believe thusly?
OldSoul
I was baptized young, in the year the two questions changed (1985). I was surprised by the change, because I was not advised prior to my baptism of the questions that would be asked. I knew the ones from the 1973 Watchtower and could conscientiously answer them in the affirmative. Why does an organization need a contract with me in order for me to get baptized as a servant of Jehovah? Now, I am waiting for any Jehovah's Witness to offer support in Scripture of these four articles of faith: (1) the Faithful and Discreet Slave is a class of people, (2) that the holy spirit directs organizations in addition to individuals, (3) that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is responsible for revealing ;new light; (as opposed to ;food at the proper time&;) to anyone, and finally (4) that Jehovah deals with individual other sheep differently than the little flock. Where is the Scriptural support for any one of these teachings? Can they be established Scripturally without uninspired human interpretation? No Witness has been able to support these doctrines, these 'traditions of men,' with Scripture.
I visited your Profile section, Old Soul, for a glimpse into the person I'm communicating with here and the above is what you wrote.
You and I, in this sense, are on the same page. We both ask for support of assertions (doctrines, traditions) and are repelled by the lack of them. The Watchtower's FDS have created a body of assertions they purport to establish as Truth. It is all rhetorical nonsense (as we now know) but, they are able to maintain the illusion only by the willing participation of persons (rank and file JW's) who allow it to happen to them by accepting the basis of the FDS theory that they are spirit-directed. The "spirit-directed" part is worse than metaphor, but, just as illusory, unprovable, unreal and imaginary, however.
Just as you are no longer able to buy-in to the very premise of supportable doctrine from the Watchtower; I too am no longer able to buy-in to the mystical assertions of any "other" reality. I, like you, want to see the credentials of those persons who insist they really have something transcendant other than words attached to mere nothings.
As I said, we are on the same page. You don't see the irony of this, somehow.
I'm defending the reality against the assertion of "other" reality because my experience with "other" realities has convinced me of the danger of allowing the human mind to function on a diet of metaphor dressed up as entity. That is all my comments are about. I've got nothing personal against you as a person. I don't hate you and can't imagine why an honest discussion of this language problem should evoke such an attribution from you.
The heading of your Topic is "Why naturalism is irrational" and yet, the very opposite is presented as the textual support mechanism. That caught my attention and I chimed in. That's about all that is going on with me.
T.
Terry,
1) Poor reading comprehension skills: This is not my topic, it was started by Shining One.
2) I stated specifically that within the confines of the Scientific Method, naturalism is rational and honest. Your arguments, if founded on thinking the topic was my topic, seem less irrational and more honestly mistaken.
3) You want to see my credentials? I don't have any. Unlike the Governing Body, I never claimed to. I don't see any irony in this, there is no comparison really. My assertions are personal assertions, I do not claim to be a means by which anyone can attain an understanding of the Spiritual, I merely claim that I have subjectively experienced it. You have no means to falsify my claim, but you are welcome to disbelieve.
4) Since I am not encumbered by a need to prove what I have experienced unless I claim authority for my viewpoint on that basis, you are not welcome to infer dishonesty on my part unless you can prove it.
5) You cannot prove dishonesty on my part, because I admit that I cannot prove my experiences to anyone, I admit that my experiences do not confer authority on me, and I admit that these are subjective experiences -- which automatically eliminates the possibility of appeal to objective proof.
I understand your tone, if you misundertood my thinking based on an incorrect assumption that I started this thread. I can easily forgive that without a request. However, I do not believe there is ever reason for resorting the same sophistic tactics used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, especially not in the same breath as decrying them and their "mentality." I didn't think you really hate me, I was only have a bit of fun at your metaphorical expense. I apologize for any discomfort arising from not making that clear enough. I thought the "Nana-nana-boo-boo" was a dead giveaway . I am really enjoying the discussion, it just seemed like you weren't responding to my posts. It seemed like your were responding to a whole host of preconceptions and prejudices you have acquired over the years and unloading them on a convenient target that crossed your path. I don't mind being your punching bag, I can't be offended.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
No harm, no foul.
On to other things.....
T.
Hooberus,
>> My point thusfar is simply that it can be included in evolution (see for example Simpson).
Sure, and Evolution can be included in Cosmology, but then all you are doing is talking to yourself because everyone else in the conversation is talking about the Theory of Evolution while you are trying to confuse the subject with your fuzzy expanded concept of "evolution". You can't have an intelligent conversation if you're talking about something completely different than the rest of the group is.
rem
Hooberus,
I admit that a couple of scenarios of abiogenesis involve natural selection to some extent. e.g. selection for more reactive self-catalyzing RNA, or the selection for the quicker replicating clay templates. And with that mechanism being evoked , some ID proponents may mistakenly believe that evolution is also about explaining origins.
But I'm sure you've been told this before, how Darwin himself in Origins wrote of the possibility that a Creator started off life with simple microbes and evolution took it from there. Abiogenesis then, can and is separate from the theory evolution.
Shining One:
Logic does not transcend space and time.
Logic only exists where human minds think. Before humans became self aware logic did not exist.
