in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
A ha: "Yeah, the conversation was about organic molecules, not living organisms
was it not about the transition from dead matter to life? and we have not just mud, but organic, ex-life stuff around. Is life then a question of oxygen management? We have re-created the energy conditions near the big bang, how difficult should it be to get near the beginning of the one and only life?
one hundred years have passed and the society still supports this lie, which of course, is the basis of their other lies, like that of the unfaithful and not discreet slave appointed in 1919. however, i wonder, what will happen after 50 years, when the overlapped generation will pass?.
and if you want, what will happen with this religion in 2100?, could it survive with the same lie??
?.
The current timeline of the overlapping generation extends to 2075. This is based upon 2 Fr. Franzes overlapping from 1992 and living to about 100.*** Wt loves 1914, because something actually happened that year, although not what they predicted. But the overlapping anointed doctrine is already dead, because wt says the anointed generation will be in heaven by the end, and The Prophecy says they will survive the end, as the Christians did in 70 CE, Wt predicts the 1914 date will last until 2075, but it is already dead.
***David Splain used Frederik Franz as an example of the first group, he died in 1992, nearly 100 years old. a similar anointed, "serving" for 80+ years after Franz's death would give that memorable centennial: 2075. like 1975, it is unlikely to happen.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
A ha: and oxygen reacts with organic compounds and they degrade.
but even slightly degraded complex once-alive compounds would be better than ground rock and water to have life start again? just speculating, there was a one-off energy event that was conducive to get life started.? anyway, the deist view, it all, however fantastic it is, life, consciousness, would not be here if there would not have been a creation event, and with our brains, if possible, it is only time that we could replicate life. but why would we need to, we have learned to manipulate the life we have to suit our needs. or?
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
what gives me pause is, that with all the juicy organic material around, we have not seen spontaneous, or artificial restarting of the original spark that fired up life. If that potential was build into the original energy, matter, law mix? why is it so rare then?
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
so: If scientist would replicate the beginning of life, starting the fire, giving life a second start, perhaps a different start, would that not prove that it is not unique? There is many way to start a fire, friction, chemical-- but what if we can't?
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
A Ha: "Their challenge will change from "You can't say how life got here," to "You can't provethat your successful lab experiments are the way life actually got here." (A variation of the 'you weren't there' argument.)
well in that case, if at least two ways to fire up life exist, that would take away from the uniqueness we believe in now. or? is not most life's energy a fire, oxydation?
i was thinking this morning in context with the shunning practice- which we all know is a degrading and abusive routine carried out among all brainwashed jw's to those who have sinned/left the org etc.. so with that in mind, how does shunning differ from the silent treatment to jw's?
both are similar in definition... silent treatment.
: an act of completely ignoring a person or thing by resort to silence especially as a means of expressing contempt or disapproval.shun, shunning: persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution.based on jw teachings which i stupidly accepted back when i was asleep and under mind control, i didn't give it two thoughts on how both acts are related.. i do remember an article in a wt which spoke of how the silent treatment is a harsh and abusive form of discipline, but then they twist it back and claim that shunning is a loving provision?
The fact that the silent treatment exist in the congregations is proof that the ideals of Christian teachings have zero effect on these members and their overseers.
i am of the opinion that the wt doctrine is influenced more by external factors that it is by internal ones.
one of the doctrines that has puzzled me for some time is the armageddon prediction of 1975. why would the wts make this prediction?
what was their real purpose?.
Wt did not tie the "Everlasting--" book release in 1966 with 1975. That gem did not dawn on the members until later, when the paragraphs were ruminated in the book studies where we were. Then the scramble to prove your worth through service, or for profit started. If wt wanted to boost their property tax free status in NY, would they not at least locally have highlighted the 1975 sleeper in that book openly and earlier?
so the wt used ex 1:6 to define a generation from the very beginning.
then in the this september broadcast the same person (splain) who spent 20 min with charts to explain a generation, makes a point that joseph and his brothers were very close in age?
(min 4:29).
JWlove: "Matthew 1 shows that generations do not overlap.
yet they often do, like grandfathers contently holding their grandsons, living contemporaneously for a while, , but the three generations or two, are never counted as one generation Each new carrier of the genes, the name, is a new generation, like the unique generation, anointed or not, that Jesus was talking to, or about.
playing devil's advocate here.... what's the difference between the gb changing bible interpretations compared to parliaments all over the world changing laws?
although the us constitution (=bible) remains untouched, congress passes i don't know how many new laws every year.
and of course people are expected to follow them.
Using politics as an analogy to search for truth is lacking, for truth is understood to be related more to an understanding of the ultimate reality, whereas politics and the laws are just the struggles of a current ruling system.
Wt's new truth, brighter lights "are really so bad", because they have caused so much unnecessary grief, even if they are not failed dates, false prophecies , think of the "superior authorities" debacle.
What do you expect from evolving critiques of a badly written story, the fables in the bible?
PS: it is just possible that the worst new light is yet to come.
