Posts by hooberus

19

Flood Legends

by Inquisitor in

the account of noah's flood has had its credibility beaten black and blue by current understanding of ancient history, geology and biology.

yet staunch christians, including jws, continue to assert that the existence of the many flood legends from all over the world proves that a global catastrophe must have occurred.

how would you respond to this line of reasoning specifically?

Does God Work Through an Organization?

by Confession in

in other posts i've commented on how profoundly tom cabeen's essay, "does god work through an organization," affected me when i read it on september 15th, 2004. somehow realizing that the scriptures do not actually teach this helped me to see that the watchtower society was not what it claimed to be.

read it here if you like... http://www.brci.org/attachments/org.pdf.

that said, i intend to share this information (where i can) with those current jws who'll let me.

hooberus

One very difficult argument that I haven’t yet overcome is that if you believe (as JWs do) that a worldwide preaching work needs to be undertaken , then how is it possible to do this without any form of structure or organised body? Any argument that God didn’t use a similar organisation in the past is irrelevant as no similar work on such a scale has been undertaken in the past (as Tom Cabeen acknowledges).

The issuse is not whether "any form" of "structure or organized body" is required, but whether a formal earthly, "visible organization" led hierarchically by a central "governing body" is stipulated or required. The Holy Spirit unites all believers worldwide into an living organism regardless of formal organizational memberships.

The bible instructions to meet together , to speak in unity , to have “love among yourselves” , appoint elders and others in positions of direction and , above all , the command to preach would seem to strongly infer , indeed demand , an administrative structure.

Christians have always met together with or without formal organizations. Indeed Jesus said: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20

To "speak in unity" requires being led of the Spirit and the scriptures not a formal organization. However to speak in uniformity (a WT requirement) does require a formal organization, thus they emphasis it.

There is no requirement for a WT like organization with its "administrative structure" in order for for Christian believers to have "love among yourselves". I personally am friends and love other believers who attend other Christain denominations or fellowships, and yet our bond is one of love in the Spirit. What kind of true love requires an "administrative structure" to be in effect?

The apoinment of elders in Acts 14 was done by Paul and Barnabus without any specific formal consulatation of a central organized body.

The command to preach was given by Jesus to all Christians, as well as the Holy Spirit and needs no single administrative structure. Indeed Paul took pains to state that he did not confer with "flesh and blood" nor go "up to Jerusalem" to the other apostles before commensing his preaching work.

Galatians Chapter 1

15: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

10

What do you say to this?

by unique1 in

jw
friends

as some of you know my mother has asked me for my beliefs twice since nullifying my baptism.

i sent her a long, long letter chronicling the 1975 issue, vaccines, organ transplants and 1914/607.

this is the response i got.

hooberus

What other organization is preaching the good news of the kingdom, as Jesus said it would be?

Many other organizations and groups of individuals preach a "good news of the kingdom" message. Such as the Woldwide Church of God, SDA church, the LDS (mormon) church, Born again evanglical Christians, etc.

What other organization of Christ's disciples,earth wide, has love among themselves as do Jehovah's Witnesses?. What other organization has beaten their swords into plowshares not learning war any more?

Numerous other organizations also do not particiape in war. Such as some Baptists, Christadelphians, Mennonitites, etc. Would this mean that these other groups also have "love among themselves"? Furthermore millions of Americans have not participated in war does this mean that they to "have love amongst themselves"?

What other people are no part of the world, not getting involved in the divisive politics and not coming under the control of the god of this system,Satan?

Around half of all Americans do not participare in politics. Does that mean that they to are "no part of the world"? Amoung religious organizations there are several others that do not particiapte in politcs (Chritadephians, worldwide church of God, etc.).

Also what group of people are trying to cultivate the fruitage of Gods' spirit, as are Jehovah's Witnesses, the only people who love Jehovah enough to use his name, and to tell other people what He has purposed for the earth and for those who obey Him. These are the things to consider when deciding what path choose.

Other groups also use the name Jehovah such as Mehodists, Baptists, Mormons, etc. Though they may not use it as frequently as the WT does, they still use it and even sing praises to Jehovah in their worship.

Most importantly the tetragrammation is found in none of the 5,000 plus NT Christian greek scripture manuscripts. Son how can this be a demarcation criteria for identifying the true "Christian" group.?

Please don't turn your back on Jehovah's organization.

In the Witness mind faith in the Organization is the same as faith in God, leaving "Jehovah's Organization" is the same as leaving Jehovah himself. Doubting the organization is the same as doubting Jehovah. The following is from Randy Watters:

http://www.freeminds.org/psych/openmind.htm

It is rare to find a Witness who has not seen or heard information exposing the dishonesty of the Watchtower. Why, then, do they not see a problem? Evidently, something else has prevented them from objectively analyzing factual information. Their minds are trained to stop short of doubting the organization - a wall has been erected which says, in effect, "This far you may go, and no further."

What kind of powerful motivation prevents the Witness from entering the "dangerous" waters of critical investigation? The motivation is fear; the underlying problem is misplaced securities. The Christian concept of trusting a supernatural God is replaced with a more visible and concrete symbol, namely, the organization; God's organization. The Witness learns that serving the organization is the same as serving God. The organization is the mother, God is the father, and the Witness is to obey his "parents." Since the Witness cannot see nor experience real interaction with God, his only tie with God is through the visible organization. It is, in effect, "God" to him (though he would not admit to or recognize it).

Convincing the Witness that the organization is deceptive is like trying to convince a 5-year-old child who loves his parents that his father is in jail for armed robbery - he simply doesn't believe his father is dishonest. In fact, he can't tolerate the thought, since he has placed all of his security and trust in his father and mother. The truth is too fearful and devastating to consider. Therefore, to protect his source of security, he rejects the factual information as being a lie.

The same is true of the Witness. He knows that if the organization is not really directed by God, he has no other tangible security to go to. He says, "Where else can I go?" So he remains within the system as years go by, continuing to ignore the barrage of factual information undermining the entire Watchtower structure. The more and more he ignores the facts, the more narrow-minded and adamant he becomes that he will never change, and he is more convinced than ever that he has the truth. He digs himself into a trench, erecting all sorts of mental barricades against his real enemy, which is doubt. While this seems incredible to the person trying to reach the Witness with the facts, it is just a simple protective mechanism, keeping the Witness from the trauma of losing his sense of security. In order to rationalize away the false prophecies and inconsistencies of the organization, the Witness must, in effect, deceive himself into thinking there is really no discrepancy in the organization. 1

While Christians have their security in a spiritual relationship with the person of Christ, Witnesses are taught to put faith in an organization. If they have faith in the organization, they have faith in God. The two are inseparable; so much so, that to lose faith in the organization means a corresponding loss of faith in God. This is precisely why the Witness must protect himself through the process of self-deception. He cannot bear the pain of losing his faith.

Once again, in the Witness mind faith in the Organization is the same as faith in God, leaving "Jehovah's Organization" is the same as leaving Jehovah himself. Doubting the organization is the same as doubting Jehovah. So before bringing up damaging information it is helpful to separate the Witnesses faith in God (which we want them to keep) from faith in the WT Organization (which we want them to loose). The above arcticle continues with questions to ask JW's. Also I have found a WT arcticle which deals with many of the same issues as brought up in the above arcticle:

The January 15, 1970 Watchtower p. 37-40 contains arcticle titled:

"Which Comes First- Your Church or God?"

"The "first man" represents the believers who remain faithful to their church out of loyalty to the religion they were brought to believe in. Thier attitude is: Right or wrong, it is my religion! Is that the way you feel? If so, you are certainly a loyal person. But to whom do you owe the greater loyalty-to your church, or to God? With so much disbelief rife throughout the earth, you are to be commended for maintaining your faith, but where should your faith be placed-in a religious organization, or in God?" p.37

"The "second man" mentioned in the Nouvel Observateur represents those Catholics and Protestants who stay with their church because they do not know where else to go. They havebeen taught that their church represents God, and they do not want to turn away from him. They disapprove of many church practices or doctrines, but they hope to reform their church from within. Typical of these are the 744 French Catholics who, in November 1968, sent a long open letter to the pope. In it they stated: "Today the Christian needs to live in a 'true' Church . . . Therefore all that is false, contrary to the Gospel and scandalous within the Church today wounds the Christian." Then followed a long list of grievances against the Catholic Church and it current teachings and practices. Yet, toward the end, these catholics expressed their unconditional adherence to their church by alluding to John 6:68 and stating: "Who could we go to? In her [the Roman Catholic Church] we find the One who has words of eternal life." p.39

I beileve that this Watchtower arcticle can with a few simple questions* be used effectively to separate the witnesses "Loyalty to God" from "Loyalty to the Organization". The Issue of faith in a religious organization being separte from faith in God is addressed nicely. Also issues of "where else to go" and the misappication of John 6:68 from Christ to a "church" or "organization" can be very effectively brought up using this arcticle.

In an earlier post the follwing was given by a former witness as some of the reasons for staying in the Watchtower Organization:

"Obstacles/hinderances: Loyalty. Thinking that there was no where else to go. Fear of the unknown. Believing God and the Watchtower were inseperable. Believing we would lose Gods protective barrier and bring death on our family (Like Job) if we left."

I believe that the above article can be used effectively and non-offensively to deal with these common issues.

*Here are some questions which can be brought up using the above 1970 Watchtower arcticle in which while speaking of other groups they contradict the above principals which they usually drum into JW minds.

Is questioning a religious organization that claims to represent God the same as questioning God?

Is doubting a religious organization that claims to represent God the same as doubting God?

Where should we place our ultimate faith: in a religious organization or in God?

If for some reason you lost faith in your religious organization would you still have faith in God?

To whom do we owe the greater loyaly to a religious organization or God?

Does John 6:68 refer to a church organization or to a person (Jesus Christ). Should a religious organizaion take a passage applied to Jesus Christ and apply it to itself?

If for some reason you left your religious organization to whom whould you go?

To whom does John 6:68 say to go?

72

The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog in

from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm

the secret $1,000,000 prize

one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.

hooberus

Well on the one hand: the mathematical and chemical hurdles of the very first steps can be met with the right set of environmental conditions. Its plausible that other worlds may have settings that are more condusive to such early stages. Amino acids have been detected deep within meteorites for example. Assembly of protein or nucleic acid chains can be done with straightforward condensation reactions. Catalytic RNAs/ribozymes demonstrate how one molecule can act as both self replicating code and enzyme, thereby eliminating the chicken and egg dilemma of which came first the code or the enzyme that replicates it. Thats a significant start.
On the other hand: I have to agree with you that we're still in the dark on several very crucial steps. Going from the RNA world to the DNA world means a slew of other necessary enzymes and the genetic code for them. Then there's the matter of how metabolic pathways became established (along with the archived code for it) . But we at least have some tantalizing indicators and leads that can bring us closer to some answers. The missing pieces to the puzzle may be out there. Or not. I simply think all this extra bit of information means that this is still an option worthy of consideration and so one doesn't have to automatically cry out "creator god" by default.

Midget, I'll post the following for those genuinely interested. You will also find a critique of the RNA hypothesis by Dean Kenyon a former prominent evolutionary origin of life biologist (and author of Biochemical Predestination)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

Below is a critique of some of the problems of the frequently cited talkorigins abiogenesis arcticle.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935

I would also like to once again state that there are numerous ways of defining evolution and that some evolutionists themselves (even prominent ones) have included the origin of life in evolution. For some additional references: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe07orlf.html#orgnlfvltnhsnxplntn

Also it is clearly included by Mayr in a paragraph in "What Evolution Is" (ironically also excluded in the same book's glossary). See also the definition by Kerkut. And of course even dedicated evolution books also frequently start with it with no demarcation between it and other evolutionary subjects.

This is not intended to argue that it must always be included in the various definitions. However, the above are sufficient to refute the claim often made in these discussions by many evolutionists that it must always be excluded.

Most importantly is should be acknowledged by everyone that the "origin of life" certainly is an important part of the "evolutionary" version of history- and it is history that the creation/ evolution debate is really about.

Finally, I would like to say that due to important personal factors and time constraints that I will be discontinuing discussions on the JWD forum as relating to origins science subjects.

hooberus

72

The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog in

from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm

the secret $1,000,000 prize

one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.

hooberus

hooberus

Any insights on the process of abiogodesis yet?

Abaddon seems to be saying that before Bibilcal creationists can criticize abiogenesis (a suposedly scientific theory that should be subject to scientific scrutiny on its own merits) that creationists should be required to first come up with an alternate theory for something that we don't even believe in (that is "abiogogesis").

Or do you use special pleading to avoid responding to a request for your theory of how god arrose?

Since I don't believe that "god arrose" I have no "theory" on it.

You could always use a quote from a website that confuses people with bad science and make them think Creationism is credible, all the while running a nice profit to swell the pockets of its Executive Officers with twice the salary of a comparable charitable institution. Or make excuses why you haven't refuted falsifications of Biblical chronolgy that show the Flood or Creation could not be literal accounts. Or blame wicked godless scientists for a cover-up?

Consider my breath baited...

Re: dialogue on these issues with Abaddon:
As he was previously told I intend to discontinue all further discussions with him regarding his accusations against myself and the sources I use as several more than sufficient responses have been given and I see no need to take any more time.
For previous dialogues interested readers are encouraged to read the following dialogues as well as the numerous referenced links:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/106111/3.ashx

72

The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog in

from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm

the secret $1,000,000 prize

one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.

hooberus

How does the presumed unlikelihood of abiogenesis here on Earth automatically translate into a confirmation of life being directly created by the personal god of the bible? Why overlook the possibility of having the right conditions elsewhere in the universe for life to arise naturally? At least there's some tangible evidence for that option. Bacteria have been shown to survive the vacuum of space and several organic precursors utilized by life as we know it has been detected in our nearby vicinity of outer space.

Midget, Many of the the problems (chemical and mathematical) still remain for abiogenesis even if the possibility of numerous other locations in the universe are taken into account. The presence of some very simple organic precursers in space helps very little, since the main problems involve other things (such as assembly, functional sequencing, etc, etc.).

72

The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog in

from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm

the secret $1,000,000 prize

one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.

hooberus

Hoob,

"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949 George Gaylord Simpson
Evolution doesn't work without life. Without reproducing systems, there can be no such thing as evolution. . . .

Apparently Simpson disagreed.

Anyway, as I have stated before there are many diffent ways of defining evolution (I have listed several-including technical ones- in previous threads), and some evolutionists themselves have included the origin of life in it.

72

The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog in

from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm

the secret $1,000,000 prize

one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.

hooberus

Ha Ha...Hooberus, such a short time that I have been here and already I chuckle when you post...

Everybody, Hooberus stalks this message board in search of former JW's that are new to their freedom so he can attempt to convert them to his own personal faith...he has never been a JW, and he is apparently quite fond of threads that have to do with something related to science as he probably fancies himself to be "science minded" and isnt quite bright enough to realize that if he wants to believe the bible he should just explain everything with a statement along the lines of "it's a miracle, God did it. Thank you Lord, now how can I conform myself to your bullshit?

Thread referred to moderator.

72

The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog in

from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm

the secret $1,000,000 prize

one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.

hooberus

Before moving on I would like to clarify that the Origin of Life Prize is actually different from the Harvard research Initiative (previous comments edited).

72

The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog in

from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm

the secret $1,000,000 prize

one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.

hooberus

Abiogenesis is not equal to evolution
SNG

It should be noted that while today many evolutionists exclude the origin of life from "evolution" the fact also remains that even some evolutionists themselves have included it-including the prominent George Gaylord Simpson who wrote:

"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949 George Gaylord Simpson

Furthermore even dedicated recent "evolution" books frequently start with abiogenesis and then transition into other aspects of evolution with no demarcation.

(The fact is that "evolution" can be defined in many different ways from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, even to the origin of life itself.) I believe that one of the reasons for the insistence by many evolutionists today that it must be "excluded" by definition is really in response to the scientific difficulties that have been revealed, and not to any empirical necessity that it be excluded.