Posts by djeggnog

posted

56
Anyone here use a tablet computer
by maksym in
1. jw
2. friends
just curious here who uses the new tablet computers, whether they be android based or ipad ios from apple.

does anyone here use a phone to post and what is your experience with that?.

i'm curious as to how much more time there will be before these devices are the main computers for people.
djeggnog

(left blank because of a JWN issue - sorry)
12
Problematic JWs
by Celestial in
1. jw
2. experiences
did you ever have a problem with one of jehovah's witnesses?.

i always got along with everyone very well except for a couple of people.

this experience was partly my fault.
djeggnog

@Celestial:
Did you ever have a problem with one of Jehovah's Witnesses?...
This experience was partly my fault. There was this really nice looking sister with an unbelieving husband who was an alcoholic at a congregation I attended.... Once she asked me for my e-mail address to send me information about a gathering she was having at her house....
When her husband acquired knowledge of the correspondence, I received a very nasty e-mail from him accusing me of stalking and harassing his family. He said, if I ever contacted anyone in his family by any means, he would take legal action against me. This was total BS, because every conversation we had was mutual and very friendly. I kept a record of the correspondence....
This sister's husband attended the meetings for the next few weeks and apologized to me.... The funny thing is that none of this would have happened if it wasn't for e-mail.
You didn't describe a problem with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Your problem seemed to have been one that involved the husband of one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's forget the fact that this sister's husband isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You do know that despite what his wife may have confided with you about his alcoholism or drinking problem, one, the fact is that you knew at the moment that this married woman had asked you for your email address that she was -- repeat after me -- a married woman.
It is said that hindsight is 20/20, and while this is so, we do not need to discuss what transpired later after this married woman's husband got wind of your email addressed to his wife. What needs to be discussed is what it was about this married woman that made you ignore what you knew her to be -- again -- a married woman. Let's just say for a moment that you might describe this sister as drop-dead gorgeous. Let's also say that this sister is married to one of the elders in your local congregation and you and everyone in the congregation knows that the two of you are friends.
Now there's really nothing wrong with the two of you being friends or being known by others to be friends, since when people know why the two of you seem to them to be so "chummy" with one another, even the husband will assuage the fears of those concerned that there might be some hanky-panky going on between a particular individual and his wife by telling them that you and she have a best-of-three chess rivalry with several of the friends, and not just with brothers, and that this brother always checks with him as to whether he's ok with the brother's coming over on whatever day he and his wife are planning about best-of-three. IOW, the brother is giving respect to the marriage arrangement.
If the brother is going to be away from the house when the other brother and his wife are planning to get together, the sister's husband is going to respect the marriage arrangement, and tell the brother that he and his wife will have to reschedule. If the brother is going to be away from the house when the other brother and his wife are planning to get together, and he says it's ok because he won't be gone for very long, the other brother should know that this reckless statement of his could lead to a damaged reputation, and should have instead told the brother that he would arrange with his wife to reschedule. But he doesn't do this.
What we have here is a reckless statement and a reckless liaison with a brother's wife at her home at a time when he knows the sister's husband will not be home, when all three of them are all supposed to know Jehovah, not to mention the potential of Bro. TellAllino and Sis GottaTell happening by during the hour or so that the brother is not at home, and being informed by his wife that he's expected home shortly, and despite their both being told that they can wait there until he gets home, neither of them want to wait since they now have some gossip to report the next time anyone should see you and this sister chatting one another up somewhere, and As the Kingdom Hall Turns eventually leads to a tap on the shoulder by an elder arising out of mounting speculation over appearances.
The marriage arrangement gives to the husband prerogatives that his wife does not have. One of these prerogatives is the headship principle, which assigns headship over his wife to the husband. This principle is in effect whether the husband of a wife is a believer or an unbeliever, so that if a wife should begin a Bible study at her home with one of her own children or with someone else when her husband is present, her husband should be the one to petition Jehovah in prayer, not the wife, but if her husband should be an unbeliever, then she should cover her head when offering prayer, which demonstrates respect for the marriage arrangement on her part and also silently informs her unbelieving husband every time she does so that she is doing this out of respect for his headship over her for a witness.
What you describe in your message is a failure on your part to respect the marriage arrangement because you gave your email address to the sister that requested it of you, knowing that she was married, when what you should have done is told the sister that you didn't feel comfortable encroaching upon the rights of another brother by inserting yourself into a situation that involves two other people that are dating one another. Dating is a prelude to marriage, and even though, as it turned out, these two people decided to end their courtship, you should have known that you were being asked to "run interference" between these two people because a third person -- this sister -- thought that one of them was bad association, so your willingness to help this sister run interference was to encroach upon the rights of another brother.
You know that giving to anyone your email address is no different than giving to someone your home telephone number or your cell phone number, except here we are talking about a written communication instead of oral communication, and you should have known that it was likely that the sister's unbelieving husband could get wind of and intercept any email messages that exchanged between you and his wife, so for what reason would you have thought it to have been ok for you to have disrespected the marriage arrangement in this way?
Let me digress here a moment to point out the fact that I did note your use of "BS" in your message, the abbreviation for "bullshit, but how can you conclude that the husband's email to you "was total BS," when you know that you never asked him what his feelings were about your giving his wife your email address? "BS" is a word that some use to describe behavior they believe to be unacceptable, but your use of it seems to me to be a synonym for "lies" or "nonsense," but in view of what Ephesians 4:29 says, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use one of these synonyms, rather than an obscenity? End of digression.
Clearly, you had no way of knowing exactly how this sister's husband would react to another man sending his wife emails, did you? The good thing is that you are alive, and he didn't just get out of Folsom State Prison here in California, having acquired clever ways after serving 20 years or so there to discard the bodies of men that he feels do not give to him the respect that he deserves. He also seems to have forgiven you your trespasses based on bad judgment and recklessness on your part, which you admit was "partly [your] fault," although I see this as being all your fault. The unbelieving husband of this sister was entitled to the same modicum of respect that you would give to a married brother if his wife had asked you for your email address, correct?
This is essentially what Jehovah's Witnesses speculate is going to be the way in which we will live in the earthly realm of God's kingdom during Judgment Day and beyond, and while no one that is disfellowshipped for wrongdoing on this side of Judgment Day are in jeopardy of losing their salvation (as seems to be the common wisdom of some here on JWN), since a disfellowshipped brother is not a disfellowshipped unbeliever and a reinstated brother is not rebaptized, but such misconduct during Judgment Day could result in judgment ("the second death"), so we really need to learn these things now.
Unlike the world that is alienated from Jehovah and doesn't know him, we do not respect the husband of a sister just because he is her husband, or just because he is a brother, but at all times it is our endeavor to respect the marriage arrangement. You do not need to be an elder to know these things, for elders are known to do stupid things, too, but what is needed is respect for sacred things, and the marriage arrangement is sacred.
@djeggnog
190
The Two Trees - My Genesis Ponderings
by cedars in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i've just posted a new blog article to jwstruggle.com on the link below:.

http://www.jwstruggle.com/2012/03/the-two-trees-my-genesis-ponderings/.

the purpose behind the article is to explore my own doubts and long-standing confusion over the genesis narrative - particularly the events surrounding adam and eve's expulsion from eden, and the "two trees" (namely the "tree of life" and the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad").. in my article i discuss my confusion over what the exact properties of the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" may have been, and the fact that evidently by eating of the fruit adam and eve did not become sinful but more godlike.
djeggnog

@cedars:
The trees are definitely described in the text as two distinct horticultural specimens!!
This is my understanding from reading Genesis 2:9 as well; there were two trees, not one.
@palmtree67:
Did
From the text, I think NO.
they eat from the Tree of Life?
I agree. I'd also add that Adam and Eve knew nothing about the existence of the tree of life.
I don't believe in the idea of inherited sin.
Got it.
@tec:
I don't claim to understand everything in the account, but I do know that their death was a consequence of what they did.
As to this, I agree with you.
I think the tree of life is something you must continue to eat from in order to continue to live.
With this, I do not agree.
There is nothing in the account to state whether or not they had already eaten from the tree.
Maybe not, but the inference that neither Adam or Eve knew about the tree of life is there. For that matter, not even Satan knew about the tree of life.
@palmtree67:
As I said before.....I believe it is an allegory.
Earlier you opined that Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of life, and now you are saying that the Genesis account about Adam and Eve "is an allegory"? Well, I cannot agree with this last opinion (about the account being an allegory), but you are certainly entitled to have and proffer as many opinions as you wish.
Isn't this all just [presupposing] that Adam and Eve had immortality, then lost it?
I didn't follow this, but I'll just say that Adam and Eve did not have immortality, that a mortal human being cannot be immortal (the notion makes no sense), but that they were "plugged in," so to speak, to God so that when God withdrew from the pair, the ability of the human body to replace cells was retarded such that they eventually died. Had they remained "plugged in" to God, they would have lived forever.
BTW, if one is immortal, then this means that one cannot die, ergo, Adam and Eve were mortal and could not have been immortal, hence they died.
I think we've already established it's an allegory.
No, you didn't.
Any thoughts on what it means?
If you don't know what you meant, then who else would know what you meant?
@cedars:
I'm sorry, but that reply was WAY too long. Also, I lost the heart to read all the way through it....
That's fine. I'll just skip what I would have said in reply to this last one.
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't want to post too much here from your article, but love is so much more than "an emotional attribute." I've just leave it there.
@Razziel wrote:
Well it depends on your definition of love.
What? No, it doesn't.
In my previous post, I didn't want to get off-topic, and I don't want to do that now, but I was talking about an aspect of love that compels you to grab that toddler that has somehow become separated from its mother and is now heading toward you standing at the curb and a very busy street with lots of vehicular traffic moving on it where you using your prerogative as an adult to intercede in this child's life by snatching it out of the proverbial fire before the ongoing traffic could do it harm, not because you knew the child or had received permission from its parents to do what you did, but because it was the right thing to do.
This is one aspect of love that isn't driven by an emotional, which is not unlike when I talk to religious people trying to free them from the religious bondage that has separated them from knowing God's love has made possible for them. I've leave it here.
@cedars wrote:
Evidently, the tree of life was the source of Adam and Eve’s everlasting life, and it was among the trees from which they were encouraged to "eat to satisfaction".
@djeggnog wrote:
I understand that you think this "tree of life" to have been the source of everlasting life, but this isn't "evident" to me, and this may be because I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of a tree having something that even God's son didn't have until he was granted to have life in himself, and this was after his baptism[.] This sounds to me like you think of the tree of life as a kind of "magic tree," a tree imbued with properties that could give to anyone that eats of its fruit everlasting life, except Adam didn't know about the tree of life. You and I know about the tree of life because you and I have a copy of the Bible, which contains the Genesis account, but even if Adam had a Bible, the Genesis account wasn't included in his copy.
@Razziel wrote:
So we agree the tree of life was symbolic.
No, we don't. Read what I wrote again. I didn't say the tree of life was symbolic at all, but I see you wish to push this idea, which is fine. I just want to be clear on this point: I don't believe the tree of life to have been symbolic, ok?
@cedars wrote:
On the other hand, the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" was strictly off limits, but it was the properties of this tree in particular that confused me.
@djeggnog wrote:
What "properties"? I don't see a thing that could confuse you here. The Bible doesn't talk about properties.
@Razziel wrote:
You know what he's talking about.
Well, if I told @cedars that I didn't know what he was talking about -- and I did say that! -- then you must know something that I don't, and in that case, then it would be you that knows what @cedars was talking about, because, like I said, I did not.
When a noun is proceeded by adjectives, it's describing properties of the noun. For example, if I say "that douchebag djegnogg", I'm referring to someone who has surpassed the level of jerk or asshole, however has not yet reached fucker or motherfucker.
This was funny rejoinder, albeit profane, which seems to me to violate Rule 3 of the policy guidelines here, but funny nonetheless. However, I do not agree with you that "properties' is an adjective.
Now if I were referring to the "properties" of a eukaryotic cell, the basic components -- the membrane, the nucleus and the cytoplasm -- then these might be said to be its properties. This means that I could not be referring to the properties of a prokaryotic cell, since such cells don't have a nucleus and they are ten times smaller than eukaryotic cells. Also, in the eukaryotic cell, the DNA is stored in the nucleus, which is not the case in the prokaryotic cell.
My only point here is that in the English language, there are eight parts of speech -- nouns, verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverb, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections -- and an adjective describes a noun. With respect to the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, @cedars spoke of the properties of this tree, and "tree" is a noun, where a noun is a person, place or thing, but he didn't make reference to things about the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, like color, height, age or beauty, for things like these are adjectives. Instead, @cedars spoke about the attributes of this tree, which is a construct of some kind.
@cedars wrote:
[I]f Adam and Eve had already been created in God’s likeness, then how was it that by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad they became LIKE God and Christ?
@djeggnog wrote:
What's the nexus between Adam and Eve's having been created in God's likeness and the fact that they rebelled against God's rulership by opting for self-rule?
@Razziel wrote:
You avoided the question, and attributed God's response to sarcasm. I'm sure there must be another example of God being sarcastic (seriously there must be), but no, it doesn't count when the prophet sarcastically asked if a false god was using the privy.
Maybe there is, but I didn't provide an example, did I? I pointed out what God sarcastically remarked about Adam and Eve, saying that "they have become like one of us knowing good and bad." Save the example you used in your post for another time, but this isn't the time for examples.
@cedars wrote:
Technically speaking, nothing that the serpent told Eve was untruthful, because the fruit wasn’t itself deadly....
@djeggnog wrote:
The Bible doesn't talk about "deadly fruit," but Adam and Eve are dead, are they not? This was Lie #1.
@Razziel wrote:
Well, [interpretations] of 1,000 yrs and spiritual death aside, they didn't die anytime soon.
Who cares? I was disputing @cedars' idea that the serpent hadn't been "untruthful," hadn't lied, when the serpent did lie. I did interpret the text and I believe my interpretation of it to be correct. You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation, but I'll keep mine.
@djeggnog wrote:
Adam and Eve were like the teenager that decides that now that he has finished high school and has a job, he can now emancipate himself and move away from home and get his own apartment, so that he no longer has to do any of the chores he hated doing, except he comes to the realization that apartment life means more than just paying the rent:
There's a car payment, an electric bill, a gas bill, monthly parking bill, the laundromat, the cleaners, ironing, food shopping, clothes shopping, restaurants and/or cooking at home with hardly anything left from the paycheck to afford lunch everyday at work or to buy gas for his car. Lacking the necessary skills to be able to cook, to wash and iron his clothes, to keep his kitchen and bathroom clean, and seeing how expensive it is to buy lunch and eat in restaurants everyday, put his clothes in the cleaners and buy gas, he came to realize that his "righteousness" didn't measure up to the "righteousness" he rejected and didn't want to learn when he was back home with his parents, where he didn't have to pay rent and carried hardly any of these burdens. Yes, Adam and Eve did become like God, but [they] didn't know God's righteousness. This was Lie #2.
@Razziel wrote:
Not the best analogy, seeing as most teenagers move out for some reason along these lines, but eventually have a successful life and don't suffer a death sentence....
This wasn't the point of the analogy, but I agree with you that this wasn't the best analogy that might have been put forward by me to make my point. How you would know this amazes me, but the analogy breaks down with respect to the death sentence imposed of Adam and Eve, and its only purpose was to demonstrate the point I was making, namely, that Adam and Eve didn't know God's righteousness just like this emancipated teenager didn't know the "righteousness" of his parents, that is to say, the skills required to be successful in life. Obedience is something that Adam and Eve needed to learn, even as Jesus had to learn this when he became a man, and so it cannot be said that they had come to know God's righteousness, an essential part of which is obedience.
@N.drew:
Perhaps it is allegory of the Human Race.
You are entitled to believe the Genesis account related to Adam and Eve is an allegory.
Is it one tree or not?
I say "not."
@djeggnog
190
The Two Trees - My Genesis Ponderings
by cedars in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i've just posted a new blog article to jwstruggle.com on the link below:.

http://www.jwstruggle.com/2012/03/the-two-trees-my-genesis-ponderings/.

the purpose behind the article is to explore my own doubts and long-standing confusion over the genesis narrative - particularly the events surrounding adam and eve's expulsion from eden, and the "two trees" (namely the "tree of life" and the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad").. in my article i discuss my confusion over what the exact properties of the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" may have been, and the fact that evidently by eating of the fruit adam and eve did not become sinful but more godlike.
djeggnog

@cedars:
I've just posted a new blog article....
I read it.
The purpose behind the article is to explore my own doubts and long-standing confusion over the Genesis narrative - particularly the events surrounding Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden, and the "two trees" (namely the "tree of life" and the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad").
I agree that this was the gist of your blog article, yes.
In my article I discuss my confusion over what the exact properties of the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" may have been, and the fact that evidently by eating of the fruit Adam and Eve did not become sinful but more godlike. I ponder how this relates to the concept of inherited sin.
Ok. I would like to tell you that the tree of "the knowledge of good and bad" was just a tree, it was a fruit tree, but it didn't have any special "properties"; it's fruit was just fruit of some kind and nothing more. I'm glad that your ponderings have been about the connection this portion of the Genesis account to the inherited sin we all have and not about the kind of fruit tree from which Adam and his wife were commanded not to eat. (Based on what Eve tells the serpent, it is clear to me that Adam had told his wife that she shouldn't even think about touching this tree.)
(From your blog article:)
Love is essentially an emotional attribute....
I don't want to post too much here from your article, but love is so much more than "an emotional attribute." I've just leave it there.
Evidently, the tree of life was the source of Adam and Eve’s everlasting life, and it was among the trees from which they were encouraged to "eat to satisfaction".
I understand that you think this "tree of life" to have been the source of everlasting life, but this isn't "evident" to me, and this may be because I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of a tree having something that even God's son didn't have until he was granted to have life in himself, and this was after his baptism, This sounds to me like you think of the tree of life as a kind of "magic tree," a tree imbued with properties that could give to anyone that eats of its fruit everlasting life, except Adam didn't know about the tree of life. You and I know about the tree of life because you and I have a copy of the Bible, which contains the Genesis account, but even if Adam had a Bible, the Genesis account wasn't included in his copy.
On the other hand, the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" was strictly off limits, but it was the properties of this tree in particular that confused me.
What "properties"? I don't see a thing that could confuse you here. The Bible doesn't talk about properties.
[I]f Adam and Eve had already been created in God’s likeness, then how was it that by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad they became LIKE God and Christ?
What's the nexus between Adam and Eve's having been created in God's likeness and the fact that they rebelled against God's rulership by opting for self-rule? By eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, they rejected God's righteousness and wanted to establish their own standard of righteousness. Now we know that God sets the standards for righteousness, and Christ had come to know God's righteousness for the heavenly realm for God sarcastically said about Adam and Eve that "they have become like one of us knowing good and bad," but they had not learned God's righteousness for the earthly realm, something that God requires before he grants to anyone the right to life, just as Jesus had to learn obedience when he became a man here on earth before he was granted immortality. (As an aside here, I will just add here that if our learning God's righteousness during Judgment Day should be based upon what is written in those scrolls that will become available to us then, clearly we will all have learned "good and bad" by the time the thousand years have ended.)
Technically speaking, nothing that the serpent told Eve was untruthful, because the fruit wasn’t itself deadly....
The Bible doesn't talk about "deadly fruit," but Adam and Eve are dead, are they not? This was Lie #1. Furthermore, they had become like God, except they had established their own standard of righteousness and rejected God's righteousness. Adam and Eve were like the teenager that decides that now that he has finished high school and has a job, he can now emancipate himself and move away from home and get his own apartment, so that he no longer has to do any of the chores he hated doing, except he comes to the realization that apartment life means more than just paying the rent:
There's a car payment, an electric bill, a gas bill, monthly parking bill, the laundromat, the cleaners, ironing, food shopping, clothes shopping, restaurants and/or cooking at home with hardly anything left from the paycheck to afford lunch everyday at work or to buy gas for his car. Lacking the necessary skills to be able to cook, to wash and iron his clothes, to keep his kitchen and bathroom clean, and seeing how expensive it is to buy lunch and eat in restaurants everyday, put his clothes in the cleaners and buy gas, he came to realize that his "righteousness" didn't measure up to the "righteousness" he rejected and didn't want to learn when he was back home with his parents, where he didn't have to pay rent and carried hardly any of these burdens. Yes, Adam and Eve did become like God, but the didn't know God's righteousness. This was Lie #2.
The only way in which the serpent could be said to be misleading Eve was in its failure to warn her that she would die as an indirect consequence of eating the fruit. That is to say, it wasn’t the fruit that killed Eve, it was the punitive actions taken by God....
Warning her? The serpent told Eve that she wouldn't die, and misled her into believing something to be true about her becoming like God in knowing what is good and bad that clearly wasn't true. Perhaps you recall Jesus referring to the devil as the father of the lie, but if Eve had known God's righteousness, perhaps she and Adam would be alive today. God didn't kill Eve, nor did the fruit she ate kill Eve. God simply withdrew from them she and her husband so that the power that would have sustained their lives indefinitely ceased to function: This was death.
It was as if they were battery-powered automatons, except they were human beings, and although they had now been unplugged from their power source, they were still able to function with the life they had and even have children for a time, but eventually the "battery" did become exhausted and they died. We today live on that same battery charge that was first given us by Adam and Eve, except that the "charge" in us turned out to last on the average for only about 70 or 80 years.
Notice what God goes on to say in Genesis 3:22:
"and now in order that he [Adam] may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite...." [¶] So it’s clear from the above account that the tree of life, whatever it actually was, was a source of eternal life to whoever ate from it....
This is not so "clear" to me, but I understand your point. However, Jehovah is the source of eternal life and Genesis 3:22 is the very first time that Adam and Eve came to learn about the existence of the "tree of life." As I said above, you and I are the ones that happen to have a Bible, which contains a copy of the Genesis account; Adam and Eve didn't have a Bible, so he had no way of knowing about what Genesis 2:9 says. People often read more into the Bible than it says.
The serpent, Satan, claimed that the newfound "knowledge" obtained from the contraband tree would indeed make Adam and Eve "like God" – which it evidently did.
No, they didn't gain any knowledge from a tree, and Adam and Eve were in no respect "like God"; their knowledge of "good and bad" was based on their own standards, not God's. As I say above, God was being sarcastic when he indicated that they had come to know "good and bad," just as when Satan is twice referred to in the Bible as "the original serpent," which became a symbol of the curse upon Satan in Eden when Satan started the rebellion against God by misleading Eve.
The only issue was that they could not be permitted to live with this knowledge forever by eating further from the "tree of life". God evidently determined that having BOTH the new knowledge AND eternal life was inconceivable – hence the banishment. [¶] As you can imagine, this has left more questions than answers in my mind, as follows…
I would suggest that you stop reading things into Scripture that isn't there and this will keep you from postulating things from non-facts. You didn't read anywhere in the Genesis account about Adam and Eve's eating from the "tree of life." You read mention at Genesis 2:9 about God's making to grow trees that were "desirable to one's sight and good for food" and then specific mention made of the "tree of life" and the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" and conclude that Adam and Eve has been eating from the tree of life, when the point of separating these two trees from the other trees that existed in Eden that had been "desirable to [their] sight and good for food" is the fact that they weren't eating from either of these two trees.
Yes, at Genesis 2:16, 17, Jehovah did give to Adam the command: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it," but he never mentioned the "tree of life" that was "in the middle of the garden" along with along with the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad." How do I know that Adam and Eve knew nothing about this tree? When telling the serpent about God's command with respect to the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad," Eve spoke of only the "eating of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden...." Evidently Satan had no idea that God has designated any of the trees as a "tree of life," for in that case he would surely have said to Eve instead:
"You positively will not die. Go eat fruit from the tree of life, which is also in the middle of the garden, and then you may eat from the other tree, for God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad."
This move would have put Jehovah God in a predicament that obviously Jehovah didn't want to be in so he never even mentioned the tree of life until Adam and Eve were being evicted from Eden. No doubt Adam, Eve, Satan and the two cherubs that were posted at the east of the garden of Eden to block the way to tree of life all learned for the first time about this tree.
Just what was it about "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" that made Adam and Eve even more godlike than they already were? Was it in fact "sentience" itself – or human self-awareness?
The fact that they were setting their own standards make them like God, not "godlike." (The word "godlike" has a very different meaning than the words "like God.")
This might explain the reaction of Adam and Eve to their nakedness.
A guilty conscience would explain their peculiar behavior since they had sinned, they had previously had nothing about which to feel guilty. Adam gave he and his wife away by telling God that they were naked when God had never told either of them that they were naked. With that "confession," God knew exactly what has transpired.
Above all, where does the concept of "inherited sin" and human perfection fit into all of this?
Adam and Eve had become, in effect, battery-powered human beings that at their sentencing became unplugged from God, their power source, so we, their children, came to inherit what they had become, not what they had been, and our "charge" doesn't last too much longer than 70 or 80 years on an average.
Obviously the act of eating the fruit was sinful, but not necessarily whatever it was that the fruit did to them. So where does the notion of inherited sin and the ransom fit into all of this?
You seem to be of the opinion that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate that they should not have eaten poisoned their bodies or changed them in some way, but what is the scriptural basis for such speculation on your part?
@djeggnog
21
What are the best things to first bring up to a JW parent about mistakes, lies, etc., from the GB?
by Chemical Emotions in
1. jw
2. friends
i need advice..
djeggnog

@breakfast of champions:
DJEGGNOG should talk to his/ her parents about posting on apostate websites!
Talk to my parents? Talk to them about how faith only becomes evident by works? (James 2:18) Talk to them about the conscience and it works? (Romans 2:15)
Talk to them about why it is I can eat everything laid before me on account of my conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:27) Talk to them about how I can post something to this website with a perfectly clear conscience? (Acts 23:1)
Talk to them about the "release" that Jesus preached to those held captive to the superstitions of religionists? (Luke 4:18) Talk to them about the kind of "bondage" from which Jesus effected a rescue and set me free? (Galatians 5:1)?
Talk to them about how it is that no human being is a master over our faith? (1 Corinthians 1:24) Talk to them about how we have only one master, Christ? (Colossians 3:24)
Talk to them about why I would ever allow an invalid as ignorant of what Christian freedom entails as you are that needs to rely upon someone else's conscience to tell him what is right or wrong to sit in judgment over the limits of my freedom (1 Corinthians 10:29)? Even if it were possible for me to do what you suggest, what exactly was it that compelled you to suggest that I should "talk to his/her parents"? What do either my parents or I have to do with your conscience?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that your knowledge of the truth is limited to just a few statements you read and maybe underlined in one of our periodicals, perhaps to a few statements you heard others say, things that you thought to be a valid substitute for your actually reading, studying and trying to comprehend what things you had read in the Bible and that's sad for you. I'll never feel guilty about what Christians works I might do, for it is with holiness and godly sincerity that I endeavor to make the truth known to every human conscience in God's sight, even yours.
@inbetween wrote:
usually older ones remember the hype about 1975, and if they are honest, they will have to [admit], that it was not the brothers running ahead, but it was the whole Org pushing this date.
@DesirousOfChange wrote:
This is true. This is the common denominator that I can refer to when speaking with my elderly parents. They banked everything on never getting old in the System of Things. I am OLD. They are ANCIENT. They truly know what was said. It's not that I want them to bailout now on JWs. It's all they have. But I get less criticism now for all the things I am NOT doing anymore. No more criticism about no longer serving as Elder. No more criticism about sleeping in on Saturday. No more criticism about missing a meeting or two or taking vacations or long weekend trips. They never missed a beat. Never missed a meeting. Spent vacation days on conventions. They missed out on a lot of life's great experiences.
I'd rather be ancient having faith than to be old without faith. You stepped down from the fine work that you had been appointed to do, because you lacked faith in God's promise, because you, even as an elder, were persuaded by someone to believe "the hype about 1975" and no one having to get old in this system of things. Maybe events that are taking place in the world no longer resonate with you, if they ever did, but the mess that is the Middle East right now regarding Syria and Israel dominating both national and international news broadcasts, and Russia's and China's reticence about joining the peacekeeping efforts of the UN against Iran mean little or nothing to you.
I don't know, but give people a map, and it might take more than ten minutes for them to find these five nations I just mentioned on it, and they, unlike you, are not ignoring the truth. They, unlike you, just don't know the truth. If what you want is criticism, I'm willing to criticize you, but I'd settle for your showing up at whatever number of meetings you can manage -- taking your busy schedule into consideration, of course -- to attend.
I'm one that actually believes in the "two mites" principle from Luke 21:2, in people doing whatever they can do. There's nothing wrong with vacations or with your taking long weekend trips. That poor widow, says Mark 12:44, "dropped in all of what she had," and what she dropped in was two lepta, little more than a penny ($0.012), a quadrans. If you have only half of what this widow could give to the congregation, just a lepton ($0.006), such would accord with the "two mites" principle. Just do what you can for the congregation to incite them to love and fine works. Articulate the "two mites" principle to them. Your elderly parents don't know the day and hour, but if they are doing all they can, look at their example: Just do what you can and that is enough.
IF they do not remember the REAL facts about it, you'll have to get our hands on some older WT literature. 1968 Awake!, 1969 Awake! Life Everlasting Book, 1974 Kingdom Ministries. You'll likely need the REAL thing. My wife doubted pdf copies from online. Swore that "apostates changed what was written to make the Organization look bad!"
What issue of the 1968 Awake!? What issue of the 1969 Awake!? What issue of the 1974 Our Kingdom Ministry? What does all of this gobbledegook mean? That you thought (for whatever reason) that what you may read (or may have thought you read!) in "older WT literature" had come directly from heaven, directly from Jesus Christ himself? that the Lord Jesus Christ has personally signed off on all of the literature that had been published by the Society?
Did you really think nothing about those ministers of God from the Society, who had suggested -- intimated -- how great, how fantastic, how wonderful it would be were Armageddon to break out in 1975 followed by the Millennial Reign of Christ in 1975, had the power to skip altogether the part of Jesus' prophecy about the great tribulation that Jesus foretold would precede Armageddon? Did you recall at the time hearing anyone make the proclamation of "Peace and security!" as was prophesied by Paul? Did you forget that Jesus had said that no one would know "that day and hour" or did you believe somehow the Society knew and those men who spoke from the podium in those days knew?
I mean, how could a Witness have known that these Bible prophesies had not yet been fulfilled and yet be so stupid as to put faith in the things that certain ones were speculating? I don't mean you, @DesirousOfChange, were stupid to have put faith in 1975, because I don't know that you were one of those that did, but I do mean to say that those that did put faith in 1975 acted stupidly.
I'm in California now, but I was living in New Jersey during the 70s, and while many of the brothers surmised what things they did about 1975, the Society didn't tamp down the enthusiasm as they could have, maybe some of the brothers at the Society thought with all of the people that were flocking to Jehovah's organization over speculation that the end was imminent in those days didn't really need to be tamped down possibly reasoning that no one would actually lose their mind and go on a shopping spree with their credit cards or take a second on their homes while imaging that they would not need to pay off the debts that they incurred, right?
But there were those of us that found what was taking place to be quite amusing, but we never thought people would actually go on shopping sprees. I do know that Jehovah's Witnesses never officially made any pre-1975 end of the world predictions. We thought those saying such things at the time were just joking around. It turns out that they were not joking and that some ended up leaving our ranks post-1975, in 1976 and 1977, as these former homeowners were forced to adjust to apartment life in other communities when they realized that they would have to figure out a way to pay off those debts.
I had a ticket to see the "Thrilla in Manilla" that occurred on October 1, 1975, at 10:45 am, Manila time (September 30, 1975, 7:45 pm, EST), when Muhammad Ali defended his undisputed heavyweight championship against Joe Frazier, which I saw "live" on closed-circuit tv at Madison Square Garden in New York (don't judge me). I also watched with interest Game 6 of the World Series where a 12th inning Red Sox home run forced the Reds to come back to Fenway Park for Game 7 the very next day to close out that nail-biter against the Red Sox, where Cincinnati finally prevailed over Boston on October 22, 1975. Keep in mind that this was October 1975 and, according to you, I had absolutely no idea that the Society was teaching that the great tribulation had begun and how the end of this system of things would arrive is less than three months. This thread is supposed to be about mistakes and lies, and over the years, Jehovah's Witnesses have made many mistakes, but lies? Really?!?
Now she realizes they don't need anyone to help them look bad on their prophecy.
So what you are saying?
@Vidqun:
Djeggnog, read my post again.
No. I think once was sufficient. I got it. If I missed something, please tell me what that "something" is; I hate missing the important things! I did read your earlier post as well as this last one, and I just don't agree with you. I might add that you do not know that you are talking about. Hopefully this response came across a bit clearer than my lengthier comments were.
@djeggnog
21
What are the best things to first bring up to a JW parent about mistakes, lies, etc., from the GB?
by Chemical Emotions in
1. jw
2. friends
i need advice..
djeggnog

@Chemical Emotions:
What are the best things to first bring up to a JW parent about mistakes, lies, etc., from the GB?
I need advice.
Over the history of Jehovah's Witnesses many interpretations of the Bible have been advanced in our search to gain an understanding of truth, which interpretations later had to be abandoned when we discovered they we were in error about them, which means that we are quite candid about our mistakes when we discover we are wrong about a particular interpretation even though some Jehovah's Witnesses have been reluctant to make what adjustments are necessary after we have published these adjustments in the Watchtower or in Our Kingdom Ministry. No one likes to be wrong, especially about the Bible doctrines that they have been persuaded to believe because we all like to trust that the things we have been taught are true, only to be told years later that upon further consideration we have come to realize that we were mistaken in our viewpoint, that our interpretation of a scripture or of a scriptural passage was wrong and we all have to adjust our understanding so that it accords with the latest viewpoint.
Now I understand you to be 17 years old, which means you're too young to know how often we old-timers have had to make such adjustments in our understanding in our interpretations of certain Bible texts, but it has always been our endeavor since the days of Pastor Russell and Judge Rutherford, to get it right, and in 2012 this continues to be our endeavor since we are reminded when adjustments are made that our understanding of some things is yet imperfect. I would provide an example, but maybe that can wait.
Many of the people that might give you advice on JWN are adults and many of these adults are bitter for one reason or another, so the reasons for the decisions they made in their lives to sever their relationship with Jehovah's organization may not at all be your reason for wanting to do so. I don't have any way of knowing whether you are a troll having fun on the internet or are really a 17-year-old young woman, but as I, too, am an adult, @Chemical Emotions, however, assuming that you are what you claim to be, I would advise you to think carefully before you do anything that may adversely affect your life, for it is never wise to do anything that cannot later be undone.
@Fernando:
Since we are dealing with arcane cults, addiction and spiritual bondage HOW may be the most important or first question.
I do realize that many people -- including some here on JWN -- believe we enslave those that join God's organization and exercise control over our members and restrict other people's freedom to live their lives as they might wish to live them, so that non-members, especially our own family members and friends have concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't really like other Christian groups in the world, aren't like the many other Christian denominations, because they hold beliefs that are in many ways oddly different than the beliefs held by many other Christian churches, many of them concluding that our belief in Jehovah God, our rejection of the trinity doctrine and our unwillingness to view the Lord Jesus Christ as God makes us members of a cult.
Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses have odd or strange beliefs when compared to those of Christendom, such as our trademark door-to-door evangelization style and our embrace of Bible teachings that has resulted in many of us taking a conscientious stand against things like blood transfusions, in vitro fertilization and war, that has caused many of us to keep oneself away from becoming spotted by worship of the state through participation in politics and in political ceremony, that has caused many of us to avoid creature worship and worship of self through elaborate birthday celebrations, things that have made some conclude that we are members of a cult. It is God's holy spirit that has transformed our thinking as to all such matters, and it is through the holy spirit that our Bible-based consciences have been trained so that we have the mind of Christ and can distinguish between right and wrong from God's viewpoint.
Our beliefs aren't watered down by human standards of morality as is the case in many of Christendom's churches, but it is through our own study of the Bible, individually, that we have carefully proven to ourselves that our beliefs are in line with God's good, acceptable and perfect will, so when we should read in the Bible, for example, God's command to "abstain ... from blood," we recognize that these words were written under the inspiration of God's holy spirit, when we should read in the Bible that we should "abstain from fornication," we recognize that the holy spirit is speaking to us, and as we read and study the Bible, we become more and more filled with holy spirit so that it isn't brainwashing that kicks in when we face the decision of whether we are going to "hook up" with someone to whom we are not married, it isn't because we have been brainwashed when we struggle with medical decisions as to whether to accept or reject blood transfusions, but it is because of our Bible-trained consciences and because of our desire not to do anything that we ourselves believe would displease God.
The conscientious adherence by Jehovah's Witnesses to God's command to "abstain from fornication" has served to protect us from the plague that has adversely affected not just single people and gay couples, but married couples as well, by those engaging in premarital or extramarital sexual relations, subjecting the innocent partner or spouse to diseases that are associated with oral sex like chronic Hepatitis B, cytomegalovirus, genital herpes, genital warts, Herpes simplex, HIV/AIDS, pubic lice or scabies, and to diseases associated with anal sex like amoebiasis, cryptosporidiosis, E. coli infections, giardiasis, gonorrhea, granuloma inguinale, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis C, human papilloma virus (HPV), Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (HHV-8), lymphogranuloma venereum, syphilis, trichomoniasis, salmonellosis, shigella and tuberculosis. Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to contract any of these diseases, not because we are a cult, but because we don't want to die or become sterile or face quality of life issues for the rest of our lives, and we don't want to displease God.
Some whose conscientious adherence to God's command to "abstain ... from blood" and has prevented many Jehovah's Witnesses and even non-Jehovah's Witnesses from accepting blood transfusions, who through their study of the Bible have come to learn is disapproved by God, have ended up dying, for very often Jehovah's Witnesses find themselves admitted to hospitals that lack the personnel with the medical expertise, or the surgeons that just aren't comfortable performing certain surgical procedures without transfusing blood to replace the volume of blood that their patients typically lose during surgery. This is often the reason that a Witness patient dies in a hospital -- incompetence -- for no doctor can guarantee, nor do they give a guarantee to anyone that a patient in their hospital will survive surgery if they approve the use of blood during surgery, because they know that they cannot guarantee that such blood transfusions during surgery will prevent the patent from dying.
Jehovah's Witnesses have learned that blood transfusions come with a significantly higher risk of complications, including post-operative infections, respiratory problems, kidney failure, and death, with things like colorectal cancer recurrence, organ failure, and a significantly long-term impact on the recipients' immune system with respect to things like anemia, allogenic blood transfusion and immunomodulation found in critically ill patients. A blood transfusion lowers the host's immune response and its ability to fight infections, so that it predisposes a sick patient for the inset of infections that their immune system could have fought off were it not for the transfused blood introduced into the patient's body.
The risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain, for if the doctors cannot demonstrate the benefit of giving someone a blood transfusion, the only thing they are able to offer the patient is risk and so the real question to the patient is this: How much risk is acceptable? How much risk is a parent will to subject their child, who is not in the hospital because he or she needs a blood transfusion, but because of a car accident or a bad fall that led to trauma, or because of a inherent medical anomaly with which he or she was born or a food allergy or some disease he or she contracted?
If there is a way to treat a patient without blood, why would anyone be willing to accept a 25% risk, a 10% risk, a 5% risk, even a 1% risk knowing that once the patient's immune system has been compromised by blood not their own, the body will not be able to defend against the infections to which blood predisposes them. People want to believe blood transfusions are life-saving, but they are not life-saving. They are, in fact, dangerous due to the risks attendant to transfusing blood not their own into a patient's body.
Consequently, while trying to protect themselves or our children from unnecessary risks, many Witness patients or their children have ended up dying from the trauma or the disease for which they had sought medical treatment in the first place, and not because of their refusal of blood, often because of the delay caused in finding capable surgeons able to perform surgical procedures without extensive blood loss, which is the real cause of death, rather than the reason often given for a patients death, namely, that we tied the doctors' hands and refused to allow them to give the patient blood transfusions that could have saved their life.
Again, Jehovah's Witnesses have learned that no doctor is willing to give anyone a guarantee that a blood transfusion will save anyone's life, and we know that the parents of a child or the surviving family members of an adult that dies cannot sue any of the doctor and surgeons, nor a hospital, even if the parents or the patient agreed to the blood transfusions he or she received, for if the patient dies, it is from anemia, from organ failure, from infections caused by a compromised immune system, from liver failure or kidney failure, or from the trauma or anomaly for which they were admitted into the hospital and the parents or the patient that dies will have signed a release indemnifying the doctors and the hospital from responsibility for the risks attendant to giving the patient one or more blood transfusions. Jehovah's Witnesses go to the hospital, not because we are a cult, but because we don't want to die, but we don't want to accept a blood transfusion and compromise our immune system or our child's immune system, and we don't want to displease God either.
Now what's true about cult members is that they follow human leaders, such as the charismatic Reverend James Warren "Jim" Jones, who had claimed to be the messiah and led his congregation of 909 people, including 260 children, to leave the US and move to what turned out to be a concentration camp in Jonestown, Guyana, and led them to form a suicide pact with him, so that they, along with Jones died on November 18, 1978. These 909 people in Jones' cult were not slaves of God nor followers of Christ Jesus, but had become slaves of men, slaves of Jones' unscriptural ideas. Jones often subjected children to torture by electric shocks and by dropping them down into a well to submerge their entire bodies and heads under water as punishment, and we know Jesus would never have done such a thing. But Jones did do these things. Although Jones had a wife, he had taken many men and women as lovers.
Warren Steed Jeffs who was recognized as "the prophet" in a sect of the Latter-Day Saints called the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (FLDS) as convicted of raping both a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old girl, but he had engaged in sexual relations with as many as 70 wives, and had raped two boys, but, when convicted on September 25, 2007, he is said to have had only 20 active wives (some of whom were minors), and he had 60 children. Jeffs was the president of the FLDS Church, but very charismatic, so that he was able to enslave and exercise control over the homes of the men and women of his church, and severely restrict the freedom of those living in his compound. Jesus would never have done the things that Jeffs did to women and children, but Jeffs did all of these things, and those in his church were followers of a man, not of Jesus Christ.
You tell the OP here -- this 17-year-old young woman -- that Jehovah's Witnesses are an 'arcane cult,' and that we impose something you called "spiritual bondage" as well as"addiction" (which I didn't understand) on our members, but Jehovah's Witnesses aren't guilty of doing these things to anyone. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and never once have I done to anyone what things you are here accusing Jehovah's Witnesses of doing. There are people right here on JWN that can attest to the fact that while they were actively associating with Jehovah's Witnesses, they didn't do these things themselves nor did they learn about anyone else doing such things.
Some like to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are devoted to the seven members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but we aren't devoted to any human being, or group of human personalities. We worship and are devote to Jehovah God, and we are followers of his son, Jesus Christ. Actually, many Jehovah's Witnesses have never met any of the governing body members, many have never even been to Brooklyn, New York, never received any correspondence from a single member of the governing body, never received even a telephone call from one of them or placed a telephone call of their own to one of the governing body members.
While these seven men do sign-off on the articles that appear in the Watchtower and give their approval over what other literature that is published and distributed by the Society that all Jehovah's Witnesses study and use in their ministry, Jehovah's Witnesses are grateful for the work they are doing in connection with the spreading of the good news, but we aren't devoted or obliged to the governing body to follow any of the guidelines and suggestions they provide to the congregations.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't obligated to the governing body to follow any of the scriptural guidelines they might provide on various topics, including the controversial ones that have to do with blood transfusions and shunning or smoking cigarettes or voting in political elections, for adherence to such guidelines are voluntary and based solely on the conviction of each one of Jehovah's Witnesses that accepts and conscientiously agrees with these guidelines for the sake of peace in God's organization.
If anyone chooses to stop regularly attending meetings with us or should decide to leave God's organization altogether, one is free to do so, and even live an immoral lifestyle if that is their wish, but in their so doing, they may be expelled as members in good standing and may be shunned by many both inside and outside of the congregation for treating the precious blood of Christ with contempt, as ordinary, without which our sins cannot be forgiven. While there are reports of unscrupulous individuals, who were thought to be in good standing as Jehovah's Witnesses have engaged in some horrific conduct involving minors, these reports are the exception, and our hearts go out to those who have been raped or otherwise abused by such ungodly men since they were not of our sort, for we would have taken steps to protect these victims had we known that such persons were in our midst.
Some have wanted the Society to pay money damages for a disfellowshipping action that leads some in the congregation to shun them, but before one ever gets baptized and becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses, one learns that we take our dedication to God seriously and learns what will happen to them should the decision be made to disfellowship them as a severe reproof against serious wrongdoing. We all learn that we might receive a private or a public reproof for wrongdoing as well, but some judicial committees will disfellowship when they could have decided to reprove the individual, but that is why there exists an appeal process.
But while a specific procedure for disfellowshipping may not be found in the Bible, nor a specific procedure for reinstatement, the holy spirit does say through the Bible that the "wicked" person should be removed for serious wrongdoing, and disfellowshipment is the process upon which Jehovah's Witnesses have decided to do so. It's like being put on a "time out," except that this "time out" could last for three months, six months, a year or longer, and it certainly cannot feel good to the disfellowshipped individual if he or she is being shunned during the length of this "time out."
So even though other Christian churches do not interpret the Bible in the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the Bible, this does not mean that their interpretation of the Bible is more right than our interpretation of the Bible. We view disfellowshipping the same as we do reproofs: As ways in which Jehovah wants us to administer discipline in the congregation, not to punish anyone, although there are reports of certain judicial committees that have abused their authority as used disfellowshipping to punish due to a vendetta had against the disfellowshipped person, which doesn't necessarily come to light until years after the disfellowshipped one has been reinstated.
Now some have become so enraged as to want the Society to pay money damages for the sins of these ungodly men, except the Society is far removed from the things that these men have done, as these ungodly men aren't employees of the Society and only had a spiritual connection to the Society through the local congregation that they were attending. In the churches of Christendom, when a statutory rape occurs, for example, if the rape was between one of the church leaders and a child, then the church leader that committed the rape must stand trial for the crime and any lawsuit filed against the church could lead to a damage award.
But in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, if an ungodly man that we considered to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should commit statutory rape, that man is usually disfellowshipped and is made to stand trial for his crime, but because this man is not employed by the Society, a lawsuit filed against the Society would have to be dismissed the same as if you were the owner of a laundromat, and a rapist enters your laundromat and raped one of your customers. The man would have to stand trial for his crime, but any lawsuit filed against you, the owner, would have to be dismissed since the rapist didn't work for you, but you would have had to pay had he been one of your employees. Most Jehovah's Witnesses in the world are not representatives of the Society, but are ordained ministers that are organized by the Society to facilitate the spread of the message of the good news, men and women that support themselves and their families, and volunteer much of their own time and money to accomplish their ministry.
A cult is an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, which by this definition would indict every Christian denomination that exists in the world. Some of these cults employ many rituals in their religious practices as well. Jehovah's Witnesses have such a ritual that we refer to as "the Memorial of Christ's Death" that we practice once a year, but some other Christian denominations, like the Roman Catholic Church carry out a similar ritual -- the Eucharist -- at least every Sunday.
While you are here using the word "cult" as a pejorative, the point I want to make here is that the word "cult" would aptly describe every Christian denomination on the planet since all Christian denominations are each of them exclusive systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, each having their own religious beliefs and practices, and some of them even employing rituals in religious practices.
I reject the pejorative use of the word, "cult," but I cannot tell you that you cannot call Jehovah's Witnesses a cult, but we are not a cult, since (1) we do not follow a human leader, (2) we don't isolate ourselves from society in compounds and the like, (3) we don't follow doctrines that aren't based on the Bible, and, lastly, (4) we also don't try to force doctrinal interpretations upon anyone after we discover them to be in error, but we will always abandon that which we have determined to be false to embrace the truth as we understand it.
Many posters on this site have given excellent advice based on Steven Hassan's book "Releasing the Bonds" and the chapter "Interacting with Dual Identities".
Ok, but what have you found to be so wrong with the Bible and the good advice it gives?
None of us like to be told what to believe. We prefer a "guided discovery" process where we are asked questions that are not too far out of our comfort zone, and then to be given the chance to investigate for ourselves and come to our own conclusion.
No one that has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses have been told what to believe and what not to believe. Through our ministry we make a concerted effort to teach people what things the Bible teaches and to explain the reasons we believe the things we do. No one is forced to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, although this may not be technically true for some of the children of Jehovah's Witnesses. Many Witness parents, at the behest of their local elders, are permitting their young children that may have become familiar with some of the scriptures and are able to explain what things they were taught these scriptures mean to get baptized to early.
Perhaps "compelled" is a better word than "forced," but many of these children are just not old enough emotionally to know the full implications of the scriptures that they've learned, some having been baptized way before the "bloom of youth" had set in, when a child becomes aware of these new sexual impulses going on in their bodies where such lack of experience and knowledge on their part can be easily exploited by other children, and lead them into engaging in conduct that the scriptures they knew so well -- or thought they knew so well -- condemns.
These children have learn ed that Eve was deceived, but they had no real idea was it meant to be deceived, until they were deceived by someone at school and now they are on a prescription for syphilis or have herpes for life. Now this child knows firsthand how scripturally wrong it was for him or her to ignore God's command to "abstain from fornication," but he or she is being shunned by their closest friends and relatives, because he was too young to get baptized and because his or her own parents as well as the elders went along with the idea of their being able to boast at a circuit assembly three years ago about this baptized 12-year-old kid that now sits in their congregation three years later, disfellowshipped and feeling all alone for just being 15 years old and naive. But elders and the parents of these children are imperfect, and can get caught up in "contests" with other congregations in the circuit over the age of their baptismal candidates, which might make good press, but all involved end up coming to their senses and realizing the folly of such contests, and the effect they can have on scripturally-savvy children that were baptized too early.
But my point here is that Jehovah's Witnesses is not a cult. No one is told what to believe, but everyone one of us is taught that the Bible teaches and how we interpret the scriptures. The decision to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses is not forced upon anyone, save for the child that is baptized too early. There is a process where we ask questions and the Bible student asks questions, and that Bible student is able at all times to do their own research so as to prove to themselves whether he or she agrees that what things they were taught is consistent with what the Bible teaches or inconsistent, and to decide whether they will symbolize their dedication to Jehovah by getting baptized or not.
Depending on the person's situation one could for example ask: please can you help me understand if "legalism" is apostasy? (The only article that mentions "legalism" or the following of rules to prove or attain righteousness, calls it a denial of Christian faith).
I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you can clarify what you are saying here.
Another is: "should we as 'publishers of the good news' preach and embrace the 'good news' according to Paul"? (More than half the Bible's 152-odd references to the "good news" are by Paul - yet Watchtower religionists are ignorant of everything but a future physical interpretation of Matthew 24:14).
I don't know what you mean by this either since Paul had nothing at all to do with what Jesus stated in Matthew's gospel at Matthew 24:14. Perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying what it is you are saying here as well. Paul does write at 1 Corinthians 9:16, "Woe is me if I did not declare the good news!" for the only way that anyone can "publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth,' that Jesus is Lord, " is by preaching "the 'word' of faith" to others in our ministry. (Romans 10:8-10)
@Broken Promises:
Find a subject you are familiar with eg NGO/UN fiasco, 144k doctrine, blood doctrine whatever.... and keep asking them pointed questions. Research the topic first here to get some good points, then ask your parents questions that they can't answer.
What good would doing this do? The OP here has asked for advice on "the best things to first bring up to a JW parent about mistakes, lies, etc., from the GB." Has the governing body lied about our the blood doctrine? No. About the anointed followers of Jesus numbering 144,000? No. And how did our being registered with the UN as an NGO become a "fiasco"?
For the record, Jehovah's Witnesses need to make certain compromises from time to time about which you might hear, but may not really understand as to the reasons these compromises are made, but our registering with the UN is what gives us the right to appeal to the UN should the human rights of our brothers and sisters be denied in any UN member state for our being conscientious objectors or any of us should be subjected to lengthy prison sentences or death in any of the member nations over which the UN holds sway.
I will add here that just as many religious organizations (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) have registered as NGOs to protect such groups from human right violations that might occur in any UN member nation, so Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization has done so as a way to protect our right to appeal to the UN whenever the human rights of any of our brothers and sisters is denied in any UN member state over which the UN holds sway, which doesn't violate our Christian neutrality nor alter our neutral stance, since Jehovah's Witnesses do not assent or dissent on matters taking up by the UN on matters that are unrelated to our right to worship. The UN doesn't promote any religion, but being an NGO serves to protect the right of NGOs to worship without interference from any UN member nation.
I remember reading somewhere that you're not baptised, is that right? If so, the onus is on them to convince you that the JWs have the right religion.
No, it really isn't. Whether her parents believe Jehovah's Witnesses have the right religion has nothing to do with the OP. She must prove to herself "the good and acceptable and perfect will of God" and if she doesn't believe Jehovah's Witnesses to be the right religion, this would be the OP's decision to make, and not her parents' decision.
@mind blown:
Who are the real apostates?
When you say "apostates," I'm not clear on what religion you are asking the OP to determine Jehovah's Witnesses to be apostates from. If Jehovah's Witnesses are "apostates," as you say, then from what religious group did they become apostates?
@Vidqun:
In connection with the UN-NGO debacle. This argument, based on Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14, is for those that are trying to convince family and friends to get out of the Borg. The reasoning follows WT theology....
When you catch sight of = notice, even for a short period of time
The disgusting thing causing desolation = The UN
Standing
In a holy place = place of true worship
Where it ought not....
The UN stood in the "holy place" for nine years, from 1992-2002. Now is a good time to flee.
Flee from where to where? While the UN is "the disgusting thing that causes desolation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:15 and at Mark 13:14, that presumes to stand in a "holy place" in place of God's Messianic Kingdom, it is not yet known the position that this counterfeit of God's kingdom that is "disgusting" in God's sight will take against God's people.
The National Council of the Churches of Christ in America did, back on December 18, 1918, claim that the UN's predecessor, the now-defunct League of Nations, to be "the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth."At Mark 13:14, Jesus directed his followers to "begin fleeing to the mountains" when the great tribulation began, and so Jehovah's Witnesses have been helping others to flee to God's organization and away from all political alliances and false religion before the great tribulation begins!
@PaintedToeNail:
I ask my spouse questions, he has no answers and often agrees that I am right. Yet, he says he will always remain a JW. He is a 3rd gen born-in...there are none so blind as he who just won't see.
What persuades you to believe that your spouse is blind?
@Finally-Free:
I don't know much about your situation, but if I was young I'd be quiet and let them pay for my education first. Then I'd get a good job and an apartment. When I didn't depend on them for anything I'd start asking them questions, and stick to topics I felt might be an issue for them.
This does sound to me like a good plan.
@inbetween:
usually older ones remember the hype about 1975, and if they are honest, they will have to [admit], that it was not the brothers running ahead, but it was the whole Org pushing this date.
Well, you're mistaken. It was due to the enthusiasm of many of the brothers back in the late 60s and early 70s that 1975 began to be hyped as the year when Armageddon would occur, even though the Society had not intimated that the end of this system of things would occur in 1975, only that 1975 would mark 6,000 years of mankind's existence on earth. Many mused about how appropriate it would be, based on the comment made in the Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God book, were the Millennial Rule of Christ Jesus to begin in 1975, and this is how 1975 was given more significance than should have otherwise been the case and the Society was responsible -- "regretted" is the word that was used later -- over its not tamping down the expectation that they knew had come to exist in many of the congregations over the probability, rather than the possibility, of that end would occur in that year. Some of the brothers had indeed run ahead by reading more into what the Life Everlasting book, on page 29, paragraph 42, had stated:
"So in not many years within our own generation we are reaching what Jehovah God could view as the seventh day of mankind's existence," and continuing on page 30, paragraph 43, the following: "How appropriate would it be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth for all its inhabitants! This would be most timely for mankind.... It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the "Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence."
Some of the brothers that had run ahead were responsible for the way in which many responded to what seemed to them to be a sure prediction by piling up debt for things that they could not afford, burning up their credit cards believing that they would never have to pay off such debt, which resulted in many losing their homes and leaving, accusing God's organization for their being deceived into believing the end would occur in 1975, when in 1974, the Watchtower article, "Serve with Eternity in View" [w74 6/15 ¶18, p. 379], stated "these Christians are intensely interested to see if [1975] will coincide with the outbreak of the "great tribulation...." It could. But they are ... content to wait and see, realizing that no human on earth knows the date." (Emphasis added.)
I was there in the years that preceded the year 1975, and you're mistaken.
@Black Sheep:
In my experience they will try to get off the hook by denying everything, so have literature of their era at your fingertips and dog eared at the appropriate pages before you say anything.
Deny what exactly?
Never ask a question that you don't know the programmed [response] for and always know (and have) the WT document that they need to read that demonstrates their dishonesty.
So are you suggesting that Jehovah's Witnesses are unwilling to admit what things we might have believed in the past? This is not the case. Our literature is not invisible and what we may have believed going all the way back to Pastor Russell is available for anyone to read today. No one has any interest in being dishonest in concealing what things we used to believe.
They need to feel guilty for every lie and dishonest tactic they try to use to weasel their way out of the crap they have dumped themselves in.
What lie? What dishonest tactic?
They need to feel like they are in one of those TV sitcoms where every lie they tell to pretend they are sane just gets them closer and closer to outright insanity.
What do you mean?
@djeggnog
17
Seriously, I wonder if this site is org approved: bethelandcitytours.com
by misguided in
1. jw
2. friends
i can't seem to find the editing button to put in a hyperlink:.

they also put up a video on you tube on feb 12, 2012:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usbmptrqawq&feature=player_embedded.
djeggnog

@misguided:
Seriously, I wonder if this site is org approved: bethelandcitytours.com
Let me see ...
You are wondering if a certain website is approved to do what? To conduct its own business affairs? And when you say "approved," you were asking whether this business enterprise was approved to conduct its business by whom? By Bethel? By the WTS?
No man, no organization, is the master of anyone's faith, is responsible for making the decisions that we all individually must make for ourselves, and so I have to admit to being more than a little bit curious as to what it was that prompted you to start this particular thread.
@djeggnog
29
evolution
by inbetween in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
since my awakening from the mind control of the wts, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.. i would say, today i try to be open to anything, i ll go whatever direction facts show.

while i`m no scientist, i think i have a glue about the scientific method.

i also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.. so far, it is a difficult question whether god exists or not, and probably in my lifetime i will not get a conclusive answer.. however, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no god.. even though i did not really read a book yet about evolution, i read other books of people, whose reasoning i can agree to, and they believe in evolution.. .

djeggnog

inbetween	evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009	since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking. I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer. However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God. Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution. Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment. This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+. So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++. Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs. My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ? 2) our brain We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ? I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear. English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that. inbetween
3Mozzies	Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 8/22/2010	My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for... Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species? Kiwis Rheas Moa-nalos (extinct) Bermuda Island Flightless Duck Fuegian Steamer Duck Falkland Steamer Duck Chubut Steamer Duck Auckland Teal Campbell Teal Dromornis Genyornis Chendytes lawi Talpanas Cnemiornis New Caledonian Giant Megapode Junin Grebe Titicaca Grebe Atitlán Grebe Flightless Cormorant Penguins Giant Hoopoe (extinct) Apteribis Jamaican Ibis Réunion Sacred Ibis Cuban Flightless Crane Red Rail Rodrigues Rail Woodford's Rail (probably flightless) Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless) Weka New Caledonian Rail Lord Howe Woodhen Calayan Rail New Britain Rail Guam Rail Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so) Tahiti Rail Dieffenbach's Rail Chatham Rail Wake Island Rail Snoring Rail Inaccessible Island Rail Laysan Rail Hawaiian Rail Kosrae Crake Ascension Crake Red-eyed Crake Invisible Rail New Guinea Flightless Rail Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless) North Island Takahe Takahe Samoan Wood Rail Makira Wood Rail Tristan Moorhen † Gough Island Moorhen Tasmanian Nativehen Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly) Adzebills Great Auk Diving Puffin Terrestrial Caracara Kakapo Broad-billed Parrot Dodo Rodrigues Solitaire Viti Levu Giant Pigeon New Zealand Owlet-nightjar Cuban Giant Owl Cretan Owl (probably flightless) Andros Island Barn Owl Stephens Island Wren Long-legged Bunting
Flat_Accent	Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/28/2011	Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record). You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor. Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors. 2) our brain I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.
inbetween	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009
inbetween	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009	sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?
leavingwt	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Post 13974 of 13980 Since 6/16/2008	"Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution" In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787 You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance. Here are some helpful resources: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
Amelia Ashton	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010	Bumping for NewChapter
Matsimus	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012	A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth". Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p
NewChapter	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011	Finally. Firefox worked. Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again. The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us. We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level. We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing. Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others. Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original. Read. NC
Amelia Ashton	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010	A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
Matsimus	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012	NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.
NewChapter	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011	Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference? And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process. UGH. I need more words. NC
simon17	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 7/25/2009	Regarding your question on evolution and missing links. Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.
MeanMrMustard	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 9/9/2010	@NewChapter: What would be a good term to contrast that difference? "natural algorithm" ? MeanMrMustard
Cadellin	Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 3/28/2009	When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book. As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change. Happy learning!!!
cofty	Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 12/19/2009	inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct. If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging. According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic. I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky. Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive. As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms. Here are some suggestions for a reading list. Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero ISBN-10: 0231139624 ISBN-13: 978-0231139625 Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin ISBN-10: 0141027584 ISBN-13: 978-0141027586 The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins ISBN-10: 059306173X ISBN-13: 978-0593061732 Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne ISBN-10: 0199230854 ISBN-13: 978-0199230853 Life Ascending - Nick Lane ISBN-10: 1861978189 ISBN-13: 978-1861978189 The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll ISBN-10: 1847247245 ISBN-13: 978-1847247247

29
evolution
by inbetween in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
since my awakening from the mind control of the wts, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.. i would say, today i try to be open to anything, i ll go whatever direction facts show.

while i`m no scientist, i think i have a glue about the scientific method.

i also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.. so far, it is a difficult question whether god exists or not, and probably in my lifetime i will not get a conclusive answer.. however, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no god.. even though i did not really read a book yet about evolution, i read other books of people, whose reasoning i can agree to, and they believe in evolution.. .

djeggnog

[PASTED FROM PAGE ONE]

inbetween	evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009	since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking. I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer. However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God. Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution. Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment. This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+. So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++. Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs. My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ? 2) our brain We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ? I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear. English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that. inbetween
3Mozzies	Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 8/22/2010	My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for... Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species? Kiwis Rheas Moa-nalos (extinct) Bermuda Island Flightless Duck Fuegian Steamer Duck Falkland Steamer Duck Chubut Steamer Duck Auckland Teal Campbell Teal Dromornis Genyornis Chendytes lawi Talpanas Cnemiornis New Caledonian Giant Megapode Junin Grebe Titicaca Grebe Atitlán Grebe Flightless Cormorant Penguins Giant Hoopoe (extinct) Apteribis Jamaican Ibis Réunion Sacred Ibis Cuban Flightless Crane Red Rail Rodrigues Rail Woodford's Rail (probably flightless) Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless) Weka New Caledonian Rail Lord Howe Woodhen Calayan Rail New Britain Rail Guam Rail Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so) Tahiti Rail Dieffenbach's Rail Chatham Rail Wake Island Rail Snoring Rail Inaccessible Island Rail Laysan Rail Hawaiian Rail Kosrae Crake Ascension Crake Red-eyed Crake Invisible Rail New Guinea Flightless Rail Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless) North Island Takahe Takahe Samoan Wood Rail Makira Wood Rail Tristan Moorhen † Gough Island Moorhen Tasmanian Nativehen Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly) Adzebills Great Auk Diving Puffin Terrestrial Caracara Kakapo Broad-billed Parrot Dodo Rodrigues Solitaire Viti Levu Giant Pigeon New Zealand Owlet-nightjar Cuban Giant Owl Cretan Owl (probably flightless) Andros Island Barn Owl Stephens Island Wren Long-legged Bunting
Flat_Accent	Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/28/2011	Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record). You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor. Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors. 2) our brain I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.
inbetween	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009
inbetween	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009	sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?
leavingwt	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Post 13974 of 13980 Since 6/16/2008	"Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution" In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787 You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance. Here are some helpful resources: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
Amelia Ashton	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010	Bumping for NewChapter
Matsimus	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012	A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth". Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p
NewChapter	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011	Finally. Firefox worked. Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again. The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us. We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level. We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing. Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others. Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original. Read. NC
Amelia Ashton	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010	A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
Matsimus	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012	NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.
NewChapter	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011	Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference? And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process. UGH. I need more words. NC
simon17	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 7/25/2009	Regarding your question on evolution and missing links. Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.
MeanMrMustard	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 9/9/2010	@NewChapter: What would be a good term to contrast that difference? "natural algorithm" ? MeanMrMustard
Cadellin	Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 3/28/2009	When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book. As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change. Happy learning!!!
cofty	Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 12/19/2009	inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct. If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging. According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic. I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky. Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive. As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms. Here are some suggestions for a reading list. Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero ISBN-10: 0231139624 ISBN-13: 978-0231139625 Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin ISBN-10: 0141027584 ISBN-13: 978-0141027586 The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins ISBN-10: 059306173X ISBN-13: 978-0593061732 Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne ISBN-10: 0199230854 ISBN-13: 978-0199230853 Life Ascending - Nick Lane ISBN-10: 1861978189 ISBN-13: 978-1861978189 The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll ISBN-10: 1847247245 ISBN-13: 978-1847247247

29
evolution
by inbetween in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
since my awakening from the mind control of the wts, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.. i would say, today i try to be open to anything, i ll go whatever direction facts show.

while i`m no scientist, i think i have a glue about the scientific method.

i also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.. so far, it is a difficult question whether god exists or not, and probably in my lifetime i will not get a conclusive answer.. however, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a god, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no god.. even though i did not really read a book yet about evolution, i read other books of people, whose reasoning i can agree to, and they believe in evolution.. .

djeggnog

inbetween	evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009	since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking. I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer. However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God. Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution. Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment. This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+. So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++. Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs. My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ? 2) our brain We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ? I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear. English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that. inbetween
3Mozzies	Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 8/22/2010	My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for... Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species? Kiwis Rheas Moa-nalos (extinct) Bermuda Island Flightless Duck Fuegian Steamer Duck Falkland Steamer Duck Chubut Steamer Duck Auckland Teal Campbell Teal Dromornis Genyornis Chendytes lawi Talpanas Cnemiornis New Caledonian Giant Megapode Junin Grebe Titicaca Grebe Atitlán Grebe Flightless Cormorant Penguins Giant Hoopoe (extinct) Apteribis Jamaican Ibis Réunion Sacred Ibis Cuban Flightless Crane Red Rail Rodrigues Rail Woodford's Rail (probably flightless) Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless) Weka New Caledonian Rail Lord Howe Woodhen Calayan Rail New Britain Rail Guam Rail Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so) Tahiti Rail Dieffenbach's Rail Chatham Rail Wake Island Rail Snoring Rail Inaccessible Island Rail Laysan Rail Hawaiian Rail Kosrae Crake Ascension Crake Red-eyed Crake Invisible Rail New Guinea Flightless Rail Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless) North Island Takahe Takahe Samoan Wood Rail Makira Wood Rail Tristan Moorhen † Gough Island Moorhen Tasmanian Nativehen Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly) Adzebills Great Auk Diving Puffin Terrestrial Caracara Kakapo Broad-billed Parrot Dodo Rodrigues Solitaire Viti Levu Giant Pigeon New Zealand Owlet-nightjar Cuban Giant Owl Cretan Owl (probably flightless) Andros Island Barn Owl Stephens Island Wren Long-legged Bunting
Flat_Accent	Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/28/2011	Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record). You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor. Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors. 2) our brain I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.
inbetween	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009
inbetween	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 6/29/2009	sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?
leavingwt	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Post 13974 of 13980 Since 6/16/2008	"Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution" In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787 You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance. Here are some helpful resources: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
Amelia Ashton	Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010	Bumping for NewChapter
Matsimus	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012	A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth". Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p
NewChapter	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011	Finally. Firefox worked. Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again. The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us. We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level. We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing. Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others. Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original. Read. NC
Amelia Ashton	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 11/2/2010	A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
Matsimus	Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 2/21/2012	NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.
NewChapter	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 1/25/2011	Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference? And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process. UGH. I need more words. NC
simon17	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 7/25/2009	Regarding your question on evolution and missing links. Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.
MeanMrMustard	Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 9/9/2010	@NewChapter: What would be a good term to contrast that difference? "natural algorithm" ? MeanMrMustard
Cadellin	Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 3/28/2009	When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book. As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change. Happy learning!!!
cofty	Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)
Since 12/19/2009	inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct. If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging. According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic. I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky. Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive. As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms. Here are some suggestions for a reading list. Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero ISBN-10: 0231139624 ISBN-13: 978-0231139625 Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin ISBN-10: 0141027584 ISBN-13: 978-0141027586 The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins ISBN-10: 059306173X ISBN-13: 978-0593061732 Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne ISBN-10: 0199230854 ISBN-13: 978-0199230853 Life Ascending - Nick Lane ISBN-10: 1861978189 ISBN-13: 978-1861978189 The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll ISBN-10: 1847247245 ISBN-13: 978-1847247247