Posts by David

44

Honeymoon over for the carts

by Deltawave in

speaking with inlaws i another congregation today who said exactly what is being said in our own hall.

the trolly work is long and boring and no one even notices they are there anymore but walk right on by.

jehovah really is speeding up the work lol.

So this is the result of years and years and years of the now-defunct Theocratic Ministry School and Service Meeting--standing silent by a stand displaying literature written in dumb-downed language with a smile on one's face?

You hear that sound of moaning. groaning, snapping, and rumbling? That is the sound of the millions of dead Jehovah's Witnesses from the past 100-years-plus turning over in their graves.

While I have no love for the religion, today's Witness dishonors the hard work and tradition of the generations of Witnesses that came before by not upholding their religious culture of speaking up with real conversations to get people involved and talking about God and his Kingdom.

Listen to that! The Kingdom proclaimers have grown silent! These are the inheritors of the "true religion" preached by the likes of the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul? Can you imagine them standing by a similar kiosk of the first century, some booth, standing with a smile as people passed them by in the marketplace? Can you imagine Jesus doing that in the Temple, standing by a booth of scrolls of the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets, silent as people zoomed by in their busy lives? How short, action-less, and silent the Gospels would be if that was the case! We would have to rename "Acts of the Apostles" to "Hours of Standing By Silent and Doing Nothing of the Apostles"!

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

Finkelstein does have a point. The definition of "Creator" as generally accepted not only by Jehovah's Witnesses but many Christians makes cosmological cataclysm more than problematic for their theology. I myself see neither sustainable logic nor theological sense in limiting a deity to the type of "benevolence" that makes the stuff of literalist religion.

On the other hand, such a paradox does not exist for all religions. Judaism, while not entirely absent of an eschatology, has little to no investment in "living today for eternity" as do Christians like Catholics, JWs, and LDS. The present life may be all there is, or so goes this theology, and God may not or does not have to be present in any form in the world. For these God is neither subject to the definition of "benevolence" nor bound to any other standard common to Christianity and Islam's definition of what God is or cannot be.

A universal application of evolution as a champion for the cause of atheism or religion is hard to defend as, so previously explained, the model is limited to the process. Alluding to or excluding God is really adding philosophy and theology to the mix, and the model is the product of neither discipline. Science does not deal in the transcendent and thus cannot be used as a defender of either stand or conviction.

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

I see what you are saying, Cofty, and I totally agree.

I wasn't saying that evolution is not a reality. I was saying that a scientific theory is not the same thing as the word "fact" as used in the vernacular. The point of splitting hairs on my part was to demonstrate the adage that "fear of a thing perpetuates ignorance of the very same."

Speaking specifically to the Jehovah's Witness usage and not the average person's (such as yours and mine who agree that evolution explains the facts as they are), I was purposely being cautious with possible JW readers who, like an old-JW friend of mine, believe that there is such a thing as "true science," "scientific facts," and that a "scientific theory" is something unproven. Hoping to use the opportunity to attack these common Watchtower mistakes, I took it.

My old-JW friend once argued with me that the "theory of relativity" was not true because it was called a "theory" and not the "reality" or "truth of relativity." He was closed to discussion on what a scientific theory really was, and I am sure you don't have to imagine how "fun" it was dealing with such a mind on the matter.

But I am well-versed and formally trained in applied forensic and analytical methods. Critical methods aren't in the business of uncovering truths or making facts. They are in the business of explaining them, not merely telling us "what" things are but trying to understand "why."

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

I would have to agree strongly, Beth Sarim.

But I also have to submit that Jehovah's Witnesses reject the evolutionary model merely on the basis that they are ignorant of it.

Evolution is so accepted by Christians that, as I mentioned before, Darwin is hailed as a hero which is why he is entombed at one of the most important churches in the world. That Jehovah's Witnesses won't accept evolution is far more telling about the foundation of their religion than it is about their theology itself. Evolution became part of Christianity's doctrinal tradition the moment the seal on Darwin's tomb was set in place.

Like throwing out the baby with the bath water, the Witnesses never began with an authentic religious model. Scholars, academics, great teachers and academics that have advanced not just Christian thought but contributed to science and the humanities in general--all this, though consisting of some 2000 years of great learning, were rejected by JWs on the sole belief that God was choosing them to understand some truth that billions of others were never privileged to see or comprehend.

When you believe that only your view is correct and could not possibly be flawed, you cannot ever grasp what is true or authentic. Organized religion and theism in general may be rejected by many, but it should never be done solely on the basis of the ignorant misrepresentations of the incapable Bible Students which became Jehovah's Witnesses.

The biggest mistake they made was abandoning all previous traditions merely because they were labeled "tradition." One should accept what is real, authentic, verifiable and true regardless if it be labeled "fact" or "tradition." A rose by any other name...

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

Just remembered a buddy's explanation, which was one of the best I ever heard:

"Theories are made up of facts as they are verified conclusions regarding the facts. Facts alone are not conclusions and thus are not scientific theories. Facts never change and cannot be changed, but our comprehension about verified conclusions can grow sharper and richer, and thus they are subject to change."

We are of course talking about "scientific theory," not "theory" which in the common vernacular is used as a synonym for "hypothesis" or "educated guess."

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

Theories are what is comprehended about what can be seen, tested, validated via the scientific process. You can thus say that the model best expresses the facts as we know them, but you cannot call the model a "scientific fact."

In other words "theories" are verifiable conclusions based on evidence or explanations of the facts before us, but they are not the facts of which they are made.

Chocolate is an ingredient in Devil's Food cake, but chocolate is not itself Devil's Food or vice versa.

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

I wrote about this in another thread, but here it goes again...

Darwin's tomb is in Westminster Abbey. Why? Because Christians came to believe by his death that his scientific model was one of the greatest contributions to Christian theology. He grew up religious, struggled with atheism, and ended up being an agnostic. The theory of evolution is not about how life began (alone or with some intellectual divine direction) but about the pattern that process of life took.

My professors asked us our opinions on evolution, and then, no matter what they were we were then asked: "How many here have read and studied the evolutionary model in a university setting? How many have read Darwin's Origin of Species? How many know the type of evolutionary model they prefer and how this differs from others?" Oh, we were a room of opinions, but no one had done any real sufficient research or knew any of these things when that first semester began.

I also learned in the same setting that the model for critical analysis (which in pop culture is often called "critical thinking") did not originate with atheism or scientists. It came from the world of religion. It was an invention of Siddhartha Gautama, otherwise known as the Buddha. It is a formula for finding the way of true spirituality, even at the cost of rejecting religious tradition. It was later adopted into the field of science and other methodological disciplines.

And lastly, evolution is not a scientific "fact." The scientific process does not produce or recognize "facts." Facts belong to the world of forensic exchange. A verified hypothesis in science is called a "theory," which means a verifiable model or process.

The reason for this is that "facts" do not change. They are axioms. The scientific method, however, can yield greater and new facets of data regarding an accepted model, altering our understanding of it.

Also a "model" is not an end in and of itself. It is often merely a starting point and rarely fully understood. It is what we can see or discern as so, but it tells nothing about what we cannot readily witness about the model.

In the end what really matters is that we not make a final decision on evolution until our knowledge of it has been verified by others as sufficient to arrive to a conclusion on the matter. That's what teachers, professors, and other educators are for. You can't always learn a subject accurately on your own. To arrive to conclusions you have to have your own methods and your sums validated independently. Reading Wikipedia or other sites on the Internet, watching a few television programs, reading some books on the subject do not an efficacious critical mind make. You can't determine what is true in a vacuum.

Evolution is neither pro- or anti- God. Polarized camps often try to champion the theory this way, but such is not the stuff of science.

24

Types attracted to the sect known as jehovahs witnesses.

by atomant in

l have observed the types of people attracted to the sect are many times unbalanced,unstable,emotionally insecure types.the jdubs seem to home in like vulchers circling the prey ,preying on the vulnerables.they tried it on me when my father who was an elder died.promising that if you become a dub you will one day see him again.l said how can you promise that when you keep making false misleading predictions.l was wondering if others have observed this phenomenon.

David_Jay

I think I was a certain "type" when I accepted "the Truth." I can say this because when I grew out of those habits and views I was able to re-evaluate myself and compare myself to why I felt like I didn't belong and had to get myself out from the Witnesses.

Me, I thought that there had to be one "truth" or a "right way" to life. I was determined to find it.

I was also the type of person that believed myself to be humble, but secretly I enjoined being the center of attention and having answers and filled with "facts" (what I now call "factoids") that would impress others.

I also had the habit of viewing myself and my worldview as the right one, no matter what it was.

And I rarely viewed myself as possibly mistaken. My path was the right one because I had done the research myself and now knew better. Those who did not take this path were the ones who were mistaken. Life was a game of constant compartmentalization.

That was me before being a JW. I fit in nicely upon joining and got my pats on the back and enjoyed how proud I could be in now finding "the one true religion." But I was just a teenager then.

Along come my 20s and I could see how my idealism just wasn't realism. How could I be the judge of myself and my choices? Even when I was greatly mistaken in the past, I could never really tell. It feels just as right to be wrong as it does to be right, and we often pick and choose the "facts" we wish to believe in.

When I grew out of that I stuck out like a sore thumb in the Kingdom Hall. Along came the elder visits, asking me if I was giving in to "independent thinking" and having doubts about "this being the truth and the one true organization." I was no longer walking like a duck or quacking like a duck, so the other ducks could see I was just not a duck. But I once was, and like the ugly duckling of fairy tales I grew up to be something quite different and unexpected.

I can't say this applies to everyone, but as I mentioned in a previous post, I didn't let go out this pattern right away. I quickly embraced an anti-religious and very militant atheist ideology. Now atheism was "the Truth," and all people who embraced anything but were the hated, the unenlightened masses. My new gospel had to be preached, and I did it every time someone mentioned religion or any view that did not agree with mine.

Both a family of atheists and academics from the universities that graced me with their patience helped me see there was more than doctrine at error. It was a way of thinking, a personality trait ( or a series of them in me) that was flawed.

I think a lot of JWs are like that. I met a sister who had left the Church of Christ, believing it was the truth until she studied with the Witnesses and learned they had it. My best friend had once been a Mormon, believing he had the truth until he studied the Live Forever book and realized the Witnesses had it.

Atheists who had never had a religion or grown up in one never felt the need I had to "spread" their message around as truth. Coming out of the Watchtower I learned that people don't choose religions because they necessarily want to be right or have the "only truth." I was looking for a club that would keep my illusion of being in the right alive, and pat me on the back for my compartmentalizing. And if one group didn't necessarily do that, I would alter their set of convictions to fit my needs.

10

Evolution, Critical Thinking, and Other Things the JWs Never Told Me

by David_Jay in

after reading several threads on the topics of evolution and theism, i thought i would share what happens to you when you go to college and get a real education on things: you learn that some of the arguments and stands of jehovah's witnesses are moot to begin with.

i never double-checked the "modus operandi" about many things, and boy, did i have some real learning to do.. for instance, why are jehovah's witnesses so against evolution?

it only proves their point.

David_Jay

I studied forensics, graphic design, and writing. I also took minor courses in Biblical studies and liturgy because they were offered and I wanted to see if I had learned anything real among the JWs. I hadn't.

10

Evolution, Critical Thinking, and Other Things the JWs Never Told Me

by David_Jay in

after reading several threads on the topics of evolution and theism, i thought i would share what happens to you when you go to college and get a real education on things: you learn that some of the arguments and stands of jehovah's witnesses are moot to begin with.

i never double-checked the "modus operandi" about many things, and boy, did i have some real learning to do.. for instance, why are jehovah's witnesses so against evolution?

it only proves their point.

David_Jay

You are right, DD.

In fact, another thing I learned from "evil higher education" was that Galileo (simililar to Copernicus) was not persecuted by the Catholic Church because he taught that the earth revolved around the sun.

Instead, Galileo was imprisoned for granting a revised edition of his work an "imprimatur" of sorts by claiming the current pope approved of his theories as doctrinal. Galileo did this after he was warned by the pope (a close friend) not to advertise his work as "approved doctrine" by the Church. The pope made the mistake of telling the very proud Galileo that he agreed with his new theories, even though a wave of conservative thinking was gaining political power over Christendom at the time.

Unfortunately Galileo could not keep quiet regarding the pope's personal views, advertising them in the latest edition of his work as if this made his theory dogma.

Folding in to cowardice in the face of his political enemies in the church, the pope imprisoned Galileo for the self-proclaimed ecclesiastical approval. The pope even allowed other voices in the church to later force Galileo to not only recant the claim to approval from the Holy See but apparently regarding the value of his entire work in exchange for his freedom.

An imprimatur is an official statement that a published work is free of doctrinal error in the Catholic world. A dogma is doctrine that the pope has declared infallible and a requisite to salvation (there have only been two such formal infallible statements by popes over the past 2000 years). While what Galileo did was serious, Pope John Paul II would later teach that the Church had been incorrect in its response and abusive treatment of Galileo.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay