i've been playing around with this strategy for awhile.
how could i crack the defenses and get a jw to read crisis of conscience, captive to a concept, etc., or just some reasoning points in general on blood, 1914, the history of the wt organization?
i want to help my brothers and sisters, i am still inside for a while longer and feel like i need to do something more tangible.. so i was thinking that if a flash drive was "accidentally" left on the ground in the parking lot.
I don't understand the exact nuances of this situation but I once wondered about adding fake pages to one of their rags.
This was way before we all had computers. These days it should be fairly easy with photoshop and a good printer.
Maybe you could word something that doesn't ring their auto-reject bells but gets them thinking.
Just a thought.
i have a question on evolution i have been pondering.
is there a good measure of the genetic difference between human/chimpanzees that make it possible to compare "evolutionary gap" between humans and chimps to that between eg.
different kinds of fruit-flies, dogs breeds (or dogs-wolves, etc.)?
do jw's have anything to say about whether adam & eve were married.. if so, where in the bible?.
if not, isn't it a problem for them (jws)?.
Do JW's have anything to say about whether Adam & Eve were married.
If so, where in the bible?
If not, isn't it a problem for them (JWs)?
a phrase occurred to me during my musings.
it might serve as a challenge to the religious.
presumably it won't strike a chord with most religious minds but maybe some, who knows.
A phrase occurred to me during my musings. It might serve as a challenge to the religious. Presumably it won't strike a chord with most religious minds but maybe some, who knows. Give it a try.
"Why is there god instead of nothing?"
i know that jehovah's witnesses are told not to be part of the world and not to have worldly friends.
i know that some witnesses do have friends.
but, what i'm curious about is how a witness could sustain polite and seemingly friendly interaction with worldlies and at the same time feel that these are not people s/he should befriend.
What is actually causing the shell-shocked look then?
we know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention.
look at snowflakes.. as far as i can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex?
evolution must be false).. can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?.
Any doctrines you recommend?
we know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention.
look at snowflakes.. as far as i can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex?
evolution must be false).. can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?.
I did indeed mean to write 'without direct divine intervention' in my original question.
Sorry for the confusion.
But even if one's position is correct, and dubs obviously think there's is, it doesn't follow that all the arguments in favour of the position are good arguments.
And I'm not talking about so-called "irreducible complexity", just complexity. Yes, I'm simplifying but I'm dealing with a dub here so I have to.
Basically, if god can create a world in which snowflakes form from water due to chemical reactions and we assume a snowflake is more complex than water, then god could have created a world in which evolution could happen. So the dub says he didn't but can't use the argument from complexity to demonstrate that.
So how do I put that in a form a dub would grasp?
we know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention.
look at snowflakes.. as far as i can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex?
evolution must be false).. can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?.
We know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention. Look at snowflakes.
As far as I can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex? evolution must be false).
Can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?
found this in the latest issue of awake!
: "where science is limited.
many truths about god are beyond thescope of science.
Well the bible (by JWs interpretation) claims there could not have been any life more than about 50,000 years ago but science claims there was and provides evidence. How do they harmonize that?
i just can't understand jw beliefs so i thought i'd try to get some simple yes/no answers.
this is a genuine effort to understand and i hope nobody takes it as an insult.
hope some of you folks don't mind spending a bit of time on this.
Justifiable dishonesty doctrine eh?
Is this in any of the literature or just discussed at the meetings.
