Are Jehovah's Witnesses taught not to answer hypothetical questions?

[Hockeycowboy]

[QUOTE="Parsimony, post: 5182982, member: 5087 ......how in the world scientists got the evidence for evolution so wrong. [/QUOTE]

The same way that most every religious person believes that, when you die, you immediately go to live in some other realm, when in reality, you're "aware of nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)", you're "sleeping (John 11:11-14; Acts of the Apostles 7:60)". (Until the Resurrection.) But yet, almost all religions teach when you die, you're actually living 'somewhere else'. (Some in pain, some in pleasure.) This is the lie that the Devil told Eve: "You won't die, but you'll be like God." He's behind this teaching, part of the 'deception of the whole world (Revelation 12:9 -- he "is misleading", not that he just wants to)'; now, tell me....why wouldn't he also use his craftiness to influence scientists to promote inaccurate interpretations of mutation evidence? It certainly suits his purpose to do so! Thank goodness, not all scientists agree with CD.

This is directed to @siti, as well as @Parsimony.

Pakicetus is the ancestor to whales? Give me a break!

Siti, you mean in 10 years, you never figured out the reason why Jehovah programmed MICROevolution to occur in organisms? Hint: it has to do with our enjoyment of everlasting life!

You gave it up too quick, I think other factors were involved.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...but...Is there an emoji for irony?

Perhaps you weren't privy to the entire exchange. I purposefully included the "dumb questions" comment because that was exactly what I was calling out as misbehavior/disrespect on the part of @Deeje

I was turning the old tables on her, showing her how it felt, etc.

Besides... what do I care what any of you think of my behavior? Please give me some credit here.

 

[Parsimony]

The same way that most every religious person believes that, when you die, you immediately go to live in some other realm, when in reality, you're "aware of nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)", you're "sleeping (John 11:11-14; Acts of the Apostles 7:60)". (Until the Resurrection.) But yet, almost all religions teach when you die, you're actually living 'somewhere else'. (Some in pain, some in pleasure.) This is the lie that the Devil told Eve: "You won't die, but you'll be like God." He's behind this teaching, part of the 'deception of the whole world (Revelation 12:9 -- he "is misleading", not that he just wants to)'; now, tell me....why wouldn't he also use his craftiness to influence scientists to promote inaccurate interpretations of mutation evidence? It certainly suits his purpose to do so! Thank goodness, not all scientists agree with CD.

This is directed to @siti, as well as @Parsimony.

Pakicetus is the ancestor to whales? Give me a break!

Siti, you mean in 10 years, you never figured out the reason why Jehovah programmed MICROevolution to occur in organisms? Hint: it has to do with our enjoyment of everlasting life!

You gave it up too quick, I think other factors were involved.

This isn't the Evolution vs. Creationism forum. If you have a hypothetical question to ask me about evolution, however, then that would be relevant to the topic.

 

[Parsimony]

My hypothesis is that Jehovah's Witnesses won't answer hypothetical questions for which any answer has personally unacceptable implications for them (not that this is unique to them as a group, of course). As an example, a while ago I asked a JW on these forums if he would still believe in God if he came across absolute proof of evolution. His response was, "I can't answer hypothetical questions". That was one of the events that spurred me to make this thread, actually. Now, let's examine what potential answers a JW could have actually given to my question:

(1) "Yes, I would still believe in God". The problem with this particular answer is that it violates a tenet of Jehovah Witness doctrine: evolution and God are incompatible. If evolution is true, then God does not exist. If God exists, then evolution is not true. It's very black-and-white to them. If a JW is being consistent with their thinking, then they could not give this answer. To them, proof of evolution would be synonymous with proof of God's non-existence. Since this answer is unacceptable, let's move on to the next one.

(2) "No, I would no longer believe in God". Although this answer would be the "proper" response, it is also unacceptable because it insinuates that something could potentially drive them away from theism. For a lot of theists with strong faith, this is unthinkable. Nothing is supposed to be able to drive them away from God. Since this thought is so troubling, this is not an answer that can be given to the question either. So what else is left?

(3) "I don't know". This is probably the "safest" response to give, yet it also has troubling implications similar to answer number 2 because it implies that they might stop believing in God.

Since none of these possible responses are appropriate, they will dodge the question however they can. If I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me. Please, do be specific about how I am wrong, though. How can I correct my misunderstandings otherwise?

 

[siti]

Excuse me? Are you confused or is your reading comprehension akilter?

My sincere apologies. I suspect its both...but definitely not gaslighting on my part - I promise you - if anyone should be doubtful about their own sanity that would definitely be me - again, I apologize for misreading your remark.

By the way, it is I who can confess I do not know the intended meaning of scripture. It is YOU who profess to know it. God!

I do not profess to know the intended meaning - I profess only to know what it actually says in some cases where that is at least reasonably clear.

 

[siti]

Please give me some credit here.

For....?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For....?

I believe you're familiar with the figure of speech. It was little more than that. Rest assured, I don't need your "credit" either.

 

[siti]

Siti, you mean in 10 years, you never figured out the reason why Jehovah programmed MICROevolution to occur in organisms? Hint: it has to do with our enjoyment of everlasting life!

Huh!? So...you...mean that God deliberately created the potential for endless variety (within 'kinds' of course) so that we would never run out of new things (within their 'kinds' of course) to look it as we live happily forever (within our kind of course) in paradise on earth? Good Lord no! I had never really thought about that. But for the sake of hypothetical thinking - suppose that is not the reason for "microevolution" - suppose microevolution is, after all, just the bits of evolution that adds up to "macroevolution" over time. Just suppose, hypothetically, that this is true. What then for you and you current beliefs? Would it change how you view God? The Bible? How?

PS - evolution doesn't happen in organisms - it happens in (and between) species over generations. What happens in organisms is imperfect replication of DNA sequences (aka genetic mutation).

 

[siti]

Rest assured, I don't need your "credit" either.

OK - then you won't be disappointed.

 

[savagewind]

My sincere apologies. I suspect its both...but definitely not gaslighting on my part - I promise you - if anyone should be doubtful about their own sanity that would definitely be me - again, I apologize for misreading your remark.

I do not profess to know the intended meaning - I profess only to know what it actually says in some cases where that is at least reasonably clear.

Actually? Do you know that means "know"?

 

[siti]

My hypothesis is that Jehovah's Witnesses won't answer hypothetical questions for which any answer has personally unacceptable implications for them (not that this is unique to them as a group, of course).

Well that was my point earlier. I reckon most people would have trouble answering hypothetical questions like that. JWs have taken a doctrinal stance against the "God-dishonoring doctrine" of evolution (as it has been called in some of their publications). So for them - even considering that evolution might be true is to "dishonor" Jehovah. There can be nothing hypothetical about evolution for a JW - its just plain wrong, untrue and that's that. They're not on their own in that.

 

[siti]

Actually? Do you know that means "know"?

What I mean is I can read. If the words mean what they say then I understand it and I know what it says - if the words mean something other than what they say (i.e. if they are symbolic, figurative...etc.) then I have no idea what it means - and neither does anyone else as far as I am concerned. They might have had a revelation and that's fine for them, but unless God reveals it directly to me - how could I know anything other than what the words say?

 

[savagewind]

What I mean is I can read. If the words mean what they say then I understand it and I know what it says - if the words mean something other than what they say (i.e. if they are symbolic, figurative...etc.) then I have no idea what it means - and neither does anyone else as far as I am concerned. They might have had a revelation and that's fine for them, but unless God reveals it directly to me - how could I know anything other than what the words say?

The words were written in an ancient language. Your argument falls short.

 

[siti]

The words were written in an ancient language. Your argument falls short.

OK - then nobody knows either what they say or what they mean and the Bible is completely useless.

 

[savagewind]

OK - then nobody knows either what they say or what they mean and the Bible is completely useless.

Wow. Look around you. The world is in color and NOT black or white.

 

[savagewind]

Hypothetical question. How can anyone in their right mind believe that if something isn't perfect it is no good? That would mean that there exists nothing that is good.

 

[siti]

Wow. Look around you. The world is in color and NOT black or white.

By which I presume you mean that some people are indeed able to interpret words in ancient languages? And then might not some other people learn from these people and be able to read those words and understand how to interpret the words? And might not I be one of the latter? But might it also be the case, that although we may be able to decipher the symbols and translate the words, as often as not, we don't employ the same literary styles - poetic, metaphorical...etc. - as these ancient cultures did and so the meaning is less clear than we might hope for? And so whilst we may be able to read and interpret the words - the literal meaning - we cannot often adequately decipher the symbolic, figurative or hidden 'meanings' that the ancients encoded in their ancient language. So what makes one person think their particular interpretation is better than another person's?

 

[savagewind]

By which I presume you mean that some people are indeed able to interpret words in ancient languages? And then might not some other people learn from these people and be able to read those words and understand how to interpret the words? And might not I be one of the latter? But might it also be the case, that although we may be able to decipher the symbols and translate the words, as often as not, we don't employ the same literary styles - poetic, metaphorical...etc. - as these ancient cultures did and so the meaning is less clear than we might hope for? And so whilst we may be able to read and interpret the words - the literal meaning - we cannot often adequately decipher the symbolic, figurative or hidden 'meanings' that the ancients encoded in their ancient language. So what makes one person think their particular interpretation is better than another person's?

Very good! Yes. God makes one think that her interpretation is righter than another.

Jesus was for getting along. He was/is called the word. So, the right words are for getting along.
Are we getting along? Not we as in you and I. I think we are getting along just fine and I hope that you think so too.

The world is not getting along. It is not right that what Jesus came for isn't happening.

John 3:16

I know why it is not happening.

 

[siti]

He was/is called the word.

Well no actually - he was called the λόγος (transliterated logos).

Jesus was for getting along.

Was he? Then why did he say: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."? (Matthew 10:34-35)

The world is not getting along. It is not right that what Jesus came for isn't happening...John 3:16...I know why it is not happening.

Let me guess. Is it because some people who think they know what Jesus meant don't agree with some other people who think they know what Jesus meant about their respective interpretations of what Jesus was supposed to have said?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

God deliberately created the potential for endless variety (within 'kinds' of course) so that we would never run out of new things (within their 'kinds' of course) to look it as we live happily forever (within our kind of course) in paradise on earth?

Yes, exactly! I was hoping I explained it clear enough. It's simply evidence for God's love for us; He really wanted us to enjoy life.... variety is the spice of it! He still wants it for us, hence Christ's sacrifice.......(see below)

suppose that is not the reason for "microevolution" - suppose microevolution is, after all, just the bits of evolution that adds up to "macroevolution" over time. Just suppose, hypothetically, that this is true. What then for you and you current beliefs? Would it change how you view God? The Bible? How?

Being a former Witness, you should know this.

If it were true, then Jesus' sacrifice would be useless, as it was Adam's bad decision which led to his imperfection and resulted in our imperfection as his offspring, prompting Jehovah to send His Son to buy us out from this sad condition of growing old and dying! (Romans 5:12) Surely, you remember this?! This is Ransom Sacrifice 101 stuff.

You didn't give talks, at least not outlined talks! Come on man, you give yourself away.

So long, cousin.