I don't think you should equate evidence for evolution with 'evidence' for creation or gods. Its apples and oranges. People's belief in religion is based on faith not evidence. I agree with you that arguing about articles of faith is mostly pointless, although you can try to prove or disprove certain things based on archeology etc, but no true believer would care. Religion does touch upon provable scientific knowlege however, such as that we were created a few thousand years ago. This is not true. Evolution is a scientific fact. Again religious people usually won't care and ignore or adjust to accommodate. But its true nonetheless.
cobweb
JoinedPosts by cobweb
-
4
I have been doing some research and JWS are the true religion :0D
by Deltawave ini apologise for the sarcastic title, lol.
so anyways i have been doing some research over the years and it would seem that evidence can be gathered to support any claim a person can make.
evolutionists see evidence of evolution, creationists see evidence of creation and each religion can find an excuse to call itself the true religion.
-
-
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
cobweb
I read this post a while back but the points made resurfaced in my mind. It is an excellent post.
The point about the eating of dead animals being treated differently to that of live ones under the old law - that dead animals could not be drained of blood - yet eating them caused only temporary ritual uncleanness - its such a logical argument for blood transfusions not being wrong, particularly as they save life which is what blood is supposed to represent - and I have never heard it expressed before. I suppose the logic of it would not make a fundamental difference to a JW mind but it does make such good sense to anyone who is thinking for themselves.
-
80
Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way
by notsurewheretogo inthe statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?
" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.
is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".
-
-
cobweb
I agree that it breaks new ground in how explicit they are being. But i think one could always imply from statements qouted above like:
this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect.”
'inspired' relates to doctrine not behaviour and 'never perfect' surely means to have erred.
But they are saying it very clearly here and it is certainly striking.
-
80
Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way
by notsurewheretogo inthe statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?
" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.
is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".
-
-
cobweb
I think if you went to that watchtower study you would be majorly disappointed by the reaction. There won't be one.
I am not convinced this is even a change. As far back as I remember they have always held two contradictory positions.
For the most part they uphold the line that they are jehovah channel, spirit directed mouthpiece. This is their position of strength.
However when it suits their purposes -when they make a mistake about prophecy they roll over on their back and use the 'we are imperfect men' line. I can't remember the exact wording of their 1975 non apology but wasn't that what they said? They don't tend to use this defence often as it takes away their power but it is in their historical arsenal.
Witnesses are able to accept both positions and not recognise the contradiction.
As for why they are using this 'we are just imperfect humans' argument now, I agree, I can't see a reason for it other than to lay the groundwork for changes in the future. This is like an apology for something that they haven't announced yet.
-
16
The WTBTS' "Golden Calf"
by The Searcher inin recent months i have personally experienced 3 times how jehovah's witnesses' thinking and ad hominem attacks are being molded by their masters in the wtbts.. 1) j.w.
family members have stated that i am no longer part of the family because i say "negative things" about the org.. 2) my closest friend in my former congregation complained several weeks ago that i was "finding fault" with the org every time we had a conversation.
nothing from him since.. 3) when reverse witnessing to an elder at a trolley recently, he accused me of "criticizing the organization.".
-
-
cobweb
WT February 2017 par.12, p.26 - "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction."
...and yet, you still have to go along with everything they say as though they are.
-
21
Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?
by cobweb inthis is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.
to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.
i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.
-
-
cobweb
Some interesting points, thank you. Yes I agree that a lot of the Christians jettison what they disagree with and stick with the central tenant that they find most emotionally compulsive - that of the general notion of Jesus life and sacrifice, resurrection etc. I think many are willing to cut the arms and legs off their belief system as long as the beating heart of Jesus can be retained. In that way Christianity is resistant to being killed through appeals to literal thinking and rational argument. But for someone who does come from a literal understanding of the Bible, like Jehovah's Witnesses, I wonder if a loss of belief in Adam and Eve etc would be more destructive to their overall faith.
Suppose the Adam and Eve story was always known to be a metaphor, such that nobody thought to specify it when the story was told orally, as it was for hundreds of years before it was recorded in writing. Maybe the names Adam and Eve carry some connotation such that hearers always understood them to be archetypes, but that connotation has been lost to history.
I can kind of buy that. I have been reading that it is the Greeks who gave us a more logical rational approach but in fact the Israelite had no problem with contradiction - so perhaps they really didn't care whether Adam and Eve and the serpent were real. I would point out though for what its worth that Luke chapter 3 does list a chronology that goes from Adam to Jesus.
-
21
Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?
by cobweb inthis is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.
to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.
i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.
-
-
cobweb
Modern Christians can easily take it as metaphor. It describes the basic situation of guilt and sin entering into the world, but the snake doesn't have to be literal.
What is sin in your view? Is it particular actions that a person takes? The Christian view is that all people are born sinners by virtue of decending from Adam and Eve, rather from any action taken. It is the specific actions that they took that tainted all following generations. This is what required Jesus's ransom sacrifice.
Take Adam and Eve away - how is it now that i am born a sinner. I might say, I am a good person, not sinful. I don't need Jesus sacrifice. What is a Christian to say to that without referring to the Garden of Eden?
-
21
Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?
by cobweb inthis is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.
to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.
i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.
-
-
cobweb
But it is not general 'sins' that Jesus was supposed to die for - it was Adam and Eve's original sin that everyone inherited. This was supposed to be a cosmic balancing.
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18-19)
I always thought this was the fundamental value of Jesus sacrifice - making up for Adam's sin. The Apostle Paul was quite explicit on that point. I suppose I can see how individial Christians might fudge an argument that this was generic human sin that Jesus was supposed to redeem but that is to ignore a central argument that Paul was making about the meaning of Jesus sacrifice.
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13-14)
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22)
-
21
Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?
by cobweb inthis is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.
to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.
i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.
-
-
cobweb
If this is so, what is original sin? Isn't that what Jesus died to free people from? -
21
Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?
by cobweb inthis is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.
to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.
i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.
-
-
cobweb
This is a question mainly for those who are christian as I myself am not:
To what extent is Christianity contingent on a belief in the book of Genesis. I know there are some Christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the Adam and Eve story too. But that puzzles me. Surely the idea of original sin, that we needed to be redeemed by Jesus Christ are all based on the beginning chapters of Genesis? Disbelieve that and there is no foundation to the value put on Jesus supposed sacrifice as Paul described.
To me at least, the creation story, Adam and Eve and a talking snake are a bit of a weak fanciful idea to be the foundation of ones sense of personal salvation.