Questions on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

[JayJayDee]

They're amazing. So you think God creates each, with aesthetics in mind?

All artists do. God cannot create anything imperfect...unusual, unique, amazing...but always perfection in its detail....why else would microscopic creatures be so perfectly detailed?

l struggle to understand this concept, although lve heard it before. Does this mean that the punishment for original sin includes the corruption of our DNA to the point where birth defects and / or congenitaI disease is introduced?

I believe that we originally had perfect bodies and perfectly functioning immune systems and somehow that was compromised by the death penalty given to Adam. Because it was a penalty already stated, we have no idea how it was implemented, only that "sin" (an archery term for missing the mark) "spread" to all mankind and now we all age, get sick and die.

Our inner selves are not programmed for death, nor is our subconscious expectation of life able to deal with hardship, pain and tragedy. It was never programmed in us to get sick, degenerate into old age, lose our loved ones and die.

No human was supposed to behave wickedly, so our expectation of human behavior is also not our experience. It wasn't in God's first purpose. Every awful thing in this life is foreign, even though it is all we have ever known. Why do we all seem to have this inner programming, this collective expectation of how life should be, unless it is designed into us? Why are we all drawn to "paradise" settings?

Assuming Im ballpark close with that, and that the punishment was warranted, l struggle with the concept of the son bearing the guilt of the father. You've used a parenting analogy a few times but isn't this akin to punishing a grandchild?

Like genetic disorders that are passed on to successive generations, it is not the fault of the parents who did not choose the faulty gene and had no malicious intent in passing it on to their children.

Adam knew the penalty for disobedience and chose it. His children suffered as a result, but God stepped in with a rescuer right away. We are suffering because the God who is dealing with rebellion in the spirit realm does not operate in earth time. It is actually a kindness that we have such a short lifespan. Sleeping in death for the majority will mean a resurrection when God fixes things up down here. But I guess that's a bit fanciful for you?

Happy to share my thoughts on anything, but In trying to understand your beliefs more than convince you of mine.

Thanks. It is enjoyable to speculate with you without animosity.

The point of science? Im not sure I understand your question but I can try and answer.

LOL, no, I'm not disputing the point of science itself but in going to the nth degree in explaining how life 'evolved', but having no definite stance on how life began. That leaves a Creator somewhere down the bottom of the list of possible explanations, but it does not eliminate him. If there is a purposeful Creator, it changes everything, but it's such a remote possibility that science does not even allow for it.

So I don't see how our lack of knowledge is anything more than our lack of knowledge.

I think that applies spiritually speaking as well. Lack of knowledge is really the problem with everything. We should all educate ourselves a little better, but we are basically lazy.

For example, if you look a medical research, there is nothing to suggest we are 'medically advanced' other than comparison. Comparison with the third world, or comparison with our own history.

In a thousand years will be seen as pioneers (kindly) or infants (less kindly). There is no reason to point at our lack of knowledge as indicating futility, nor to assume the permanence of that ignorance.

That also applies spiritually speaking. Evolution cannot answer the question of spirituality. No survival advantage is demonstrated in human creativity either, yet all humans down through history have been both spiritual and creative....just like God. (made in his image)

I believe that all will return to God's original purpose. We will return to a state of physical, moral and spiritual perfection and see fulfilled the life that is programmed into us. We all have an expectation of happiness, peace and security. 'We was robbed' of that through no fault of our own, but the Creator has promised to get it back for us. We need patience whilst he deals with rebellion, not only with humankind, but in his own realm, which has a universal timeframe and those who want us to lose our inheritance.

Even WTS doctrines have changed over time. Does the recognition of earlier mistakes render the journey pointless?

The Bible tells us that God's purpose is revealed gradually over time and that when it's the time for God to turn the hose on us, (so to speak) we will know about it. He foretold a cleansing and refining in "the time of the end". Cleansing meant that things had gotten soiled and refining indicated that impurities needed to be brought to the surface and eliminated.

God gave us a sign to indicate when it was the "season" for this cleansing, but no day or hour will be revealed. It will drop out of the blue and be a shock for everyone who is not expecting it, but his servants have been warning people about it for many decades now.

Hmm...I will read and try to understand your Biblical references, but fair to say my NT is a little rusty and my OT not up to that poor standard.

I think that's what I love about being a JW. We study and research and examine details and ask questions. It is a very satisfying thing to have the Bible answer all the difficult questions. I've been a "why" kinda gal my whole life. Answers have to gel with me and I take nothing at face value.

Absolutely, although this is also the case with humans.

Yes, often the difference between functioning at full capacity and not.

Other computers could make them. Although, honestly, I don't see the importance either way.

God created life and life is reproduced by those creatures already in existence. It is not that God created every life individually, but that he designed the reproductive process in all his living creatures. The components form from a few dividing cells that all work together to eventually form a living being at the end of the process. The variety of ways in which this is carried out is awe inspiring! Don't you agree? Stem cells are only now being experimented with to repair damaged body parts. Amazing!

If you're making the point that everything has to be just right for the computer to work then I'd raise a couple of points;

1) No. It doesn't. But there are a bunch of non-negotiables. Sometimes you might use a 'broken' Computer for a long time without knowing it's broken.

No one wants to be broken or badly put together. We all want to function optimally and require our computers to do the same. Sometimes that is not the case.

2) Whilst I said I'd steer clear of evolution arguments, it's worth remembering that how I think 'computers' began is more akin to my three year old counting on her fingers, rather than a laptop. From there to the abacus, etc.

That raises so many more questions than it answers for me.

We come across a house, can determine it's been built, not grown (at which point I could ask about termite mounds), and then are able to tell that a single Creator built the house?

I think about bee hives too. Like termite mounds, they need builders using materials conveniently provided in nature. Are you not blown away by the termite's ability to utilize ventilation and solar positioning? Just pot luck? What about the perfection of bee hives in their hexagonal shape? Did the bees design that for any conscious reason?

Do the carnivores in the wild that will eat the young of other animals, just accidentally know not to eat their own? Why do animals who can breed with other species, not do so in the natural world. Why do they all reproduce exclusively with their own "kind"?

Computers are programmed by someone, they do not design, build and reproduce without a program installed by someone with skill....humans and all other living things are programmed as well. Who is their programmer?

back to you....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

All artists do. God cannot create anything imperfect...unusual, unique, amazing...but always perfection in its detail....why else would microscopic creatures be so perfectly detailed?

But there are plenty of imperfections in nature. The linked article is pretty shoddy and simplistic in it's treatment, but I'm happy to bury you under a thousand articles with more merit if it adds any value.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?_r=0

I believe that we originally had perfect bodies and perfectly functioning immune systems and somehow that was compromised by the death penalty given to Adam. Because it was a penalty already stated, we have no idea how it was implemented, only that "sin" (an archery term for missing the mark) "spread" to all mankind and now we all age, get sick and die.

Our inner selves are not programmed for death, nor is our subconscious expectation of life able to deal with hardship, pain and tragedy. It was never programmed in us to get sick, degenerate into old age, lose our loved ones and die.

No human was supposed to behave wickedly, so our expectation of human behavior is also not our experience. It wasn't in God's first purpose. Every awful thing in this life is foreign, even though it is all we have ever known. Why do we all seem to have this inner programming, this collective expectation of how life should be, unless it is designed into us? Why are we all drawn to "paradise" settings?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'paradise settings', but I would suggest humans have traditionally tried to explain away the unknown via the supernatural. Death is the great unknown, in many ways. Interestingly, religions don't commonly try to explain away pre-conception, which I find odd. Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding. When is a soul 'born', in your view?

Like genetic disorders that are passed on to successive generations, it is not the fault of the parents who did not choose the faulty gene and had no malicious intent in passing it on to their children.

Hmmm...not the parents, no. But God is like the ultimate doctor, in what is admittedly stretching in terms of an analogy. He could, at any time, remove the fault, or limit it's effect to a single generation. I find it hard to mesh this understanding of the permanent effect of original sin with any concept of a merciful or loving (or objectively good) God.

Adam knew the penalty for disobedience and chose it. His children suffered as a result, but God stepped in with a rescuer right away. We are suffering because the God who is dealing with rebellion in the spirit realm does not operate in earth time. It is actually a kindness that we have such a short lifespan. Sleeping in death for the majority will mean a resurrection when God fixes things up down here. But I guess that's a bit fanciful for you?

Well...two ways of looking at that, from my point of view.
First off, yep. Too fanciful. But most ideas of God, and pretty much all ideas of religion are too fanciful for me, not that I'd generally express it that way. Atheism is pretty much my default position, and I've never had a reason to doubt it. I'm good at keeping an open mind in my life, and I do listen, but with religion in particular it's hard for me to be open-minded, since I am at heart a rationalist.

Second manner for me looking at it is more around the details of belief. You're putting your faith not just into God, but into the Bible. I understand how you view the Bible, but there is really no reason (from my viewpoint) to place so much faith into a book which is written and edited by man.

Thanks. It is enjoyable to speculate with you without animosity.

Likewise. I get tense at people on here occasionally, but generally I came here to hear different views, not just people who agree with me.

LOL, no, I'm not disputing the point of science itself but in going to the nth degree in explaining how life 'evolved', but having no definite stance on how life began. That leaves a Creator somewhere down the bottom of the list of possible explanations, but it does not eliminate him. If there is a purposeful Creator, it changes everything, but it's such a remote possibility that science does not even allow for it.

I mistrust anything that has a definitive stance on ANYTHING...lol
Which is not the same as saying I'm a conspiracy theorist, or anything like that. Far from it. I tend to apply Occam's Razor pretty liberally in absence of definitive 'proof' (whatever THAT means!). In simple terms, when looking at Creation, I am comfortable with us not knowing. I'd prefer to know, but a hundred years ago we didn't know how to build a computer. Fifty years ago there were no heart transplants. Well, you get the point. There are such a MASSIVE number of things we don't know, that I never have any issue with science saying it doesn't know. The very concept of scientific proof is misunderstood by most anyway.

Suffice to say, if I saw cause to believe there was a Creator of some description, some flavour of Deism would make more sense to me than anything else. Simplest explanations, and all that.

I think that applies spiritually speaking as well. Lack of knowledge is really the problem with everything. We should all educate ourselves a little better, but we are basically lazy.

But you can apply it to not just science, or spirituality, but to EVERYTHING. For example, I am a big believer in studying history, and learning it's lessons. I think the perspective it provides is invaluable. But it's heavy stuff, and a slow burn, contradictory, and difficult. And time is ALWAYS an issue. But from my point of view, there is far more value in studying history, than spirituality. Philosophy rather than theology.

Despite how that sounds, I actually read a lot about religions. But I tend to be more interested in their effect and impact on the world, than the minute detail of their beliefs. I read about those too, it's just the kind of guy I am, but the motivator for me is how behaviour is influenced by belief, and what role religion has played in society.

That also applies spiritually speaking. Evolution cannot answer the question of spirituality. No survival advantage is demonstrated in human creativity either, yet all humans down through history have been both spiritual and creative....just like God. (made in his image)

So, I've had this one raised to me many times. I'll give me standard answer and ask in what sense I might be spiritual? However, I understand it's an unfair question. Your worldview assumes there is a spirit/soul within us all, and that I'm either suppressing/ignoring/starving it, I would suspect. Assuming you're a kindly type, this might lead you to feel slightly sad or sorry on my behalf. Whereas my worldview causes the same problem in reverse. Sprituality provides the means to make sense and function within an oftentimes confusing world, but it's an unwieldly human construct on top of our true selves. Strip it off, and you can function much more cohesively, consistently, and with less doubt. So I feel mildly frustrated by sprituality, since I think it's unrequired.

Having said that, I would acknowledge that many people DO seem to need it. If I'm being completely open and honest, I try hard not to see that as a weakness. I would be the first to admit that atheism offers answers for pretty much nothing. It's merely the removal of that religious and spiritual superstructure I mentioned. What you're left with can be good, bad or somewhere in the middle. And since I am a proponent of subjective morality, I think it's very important to be 'good'. And if sprituality helps one to achieve that, then any scoffing from me would be intellectual snobbery.

I believe that all will return to God's original purpose. We will return to a state of physical, moral and spiritual perfection and see fulfilled the life that is programmed into us. We all have an expectation of happiness, peace and security. 'We was robbed' of that through no fault of our own, but the Creator has promised to get it back for us. We need patience whilst he deals with rebellion, not only with humankind, but in his own realm, which has a universal timeframe and those who want us to lose our inheritance.

The Bible tells us that God's purpose is revealed gradually over time and that when it's the time for God to turn the hose on us, (so to speak) we will know about it. He foretold a cleansing and refining in "the time of the end". Cleansing meant that things had gotten soiled and refining indicated that impurities needed to be brought to the surface and eliminated.

God gave us a sign to indicate when it was the "season" for this cleansing, but no day or hour will be revealed. It will drop out of the blue and be a shock for everyone who is not expecting it, but his servants have been warning people about it for many decades now.

Have you read much about the end of the first Millenium? It was interesting the level to which Biblical surety of the End of Days was generally proclaimed. And the JW themselves have had a few false starts when offering dates. Ultimately, though , I don't see the importance. Assuming your version of God exists, then we should be living by his laws, full stop. Regardless of if the End of Days is tomorrow or in a century of centuries. And if your version of God doesn't exist, then...


CONT-

 

[lewisnotmiller]

-CONT

I think that's what I love about being a JW. We study and research and examine details and ask questions. It is a very satisfying thing to have the Bible answer all the difficult questions. I've been a "why" kinda gal my whole life. Answers have to gel with me and I take nothing at face value.

See, there are a whole raft of details I see in the Bible and have issues with. I don't often raise them with Christians, since I don't see the Bible as infallible, I see it as a document created and selectively compiled by men. Even assuming a God, and that his message was conveyed, there is room for Biblical error because of this. And then, after mutliple translations, I'd see it as virtually certain that the Bible has errors, even supposing God.

But if you're reliant on the Bible as a source of everything, this would seem to be of vastly more import.

Yes, often the difference between functioning at full capacity and not.

My assumption with life is much the same as with everything else. Nothing is at 'full function'. It is somewhere along the continuum. I'm mistrustful of black and white. I'm a healthy approaching 40's male, play sports, eat fairly healthy, etc. I've had no major health issues, and nothing I'd even call minor, to be honest. I have no mental illnesses. So, am I 'functioning at full capacity'? (err...even ignoring the fact that I'm obviously spiritually dead...lol)

God created life and life is reproduced by those creatures already in existence. It is not that God created every life individually, but that he designed the reproductive process in all his living creatures. The components form from a few dividing cells that all work together to eventually form a living being at the end of the process. The variety of ways in which this is carried out is awe inspiring! Don't you agree? Stem cells are only now being experimented with to repair damaged body parts. Amazing!

Absolutely amazing and awe inspiring. I totally agree. Obviously not about the design aspects. So, whilst it's clumsy labelling, are JWs basically proponents of an ID type model of creation and adaption?

No one wants to be broken or badly put together. We all want to function optimally and require our computers to do the same. Sometimes that is not the case.

Agreed.

That raises so many more questions than it answers for me.

Me too! I trust questions. They tend to be right. Answers not so much...lol

I think about bee hives too. Like termite mounds, they need builders using materials conveniently provided in nature. Are you not blown away by the termite's ability to utilize ventilation and solar positioning? Just pot luck? What about the perfection of bee hives in their hexagonal shape? Did the bees design that for any conscious reason?

My interest with termite mounds...(and bee hives, good example, but I'll stick to termites)...is that if you came across those having never seen one before, would you identify it as a house? What would you think of the builder? What would you think about their capacity for design? Or would you think it was a natural structure?

My guess is that you would apply your knowledge of other things to make the decision. That you would, for example, look for evidence of something living in it. That you might check for an opening, to see how things could get in and out, if you suspected a burrow or hive. That you might break a piece off to study it's composition, and check the internal workings and structure. And that based on this scientific examination, you'd make your best guess as to what it was. Assuming the termites are not present, you'd rely on things like the diameter of the passages, the presence of an egg-laying area, etc, to make best guess judgements on who inhabited the mound.

Why would I apply a different set of rules to everything else?

Do the carnivores in the wild that will eat the young of other animals, just accidentally know not to eat their own?

7 animals that eat their own kind - The Week

Why do animals who can breed with other species, not do so in the natural world. Why do they all reproduce exclusively with their own "kind"?

Reproduce rather than mate? Well, that's one of the measures of 'kind' I would assume. But if you mean mate with their own kind, it's more complicated. Could write a lot on that, but as a starting point;

Prevalence of Animal Hybrids

Moreover, it is well known that animals may become confused when it comes to choice of mate. Early in life many types of animals, particularly those providing parental care to their young, such as mammals and birds, pass through a brief receptive period during which external stimuli determine their future choice of mate. For example, when nanny goats raise lambs, or ewes, kids, the cross-fostered males prefer to mate with females of the same type as their foster mother.

The psychological process creating this sexual preference is known as imprinting. Certain characteristics become established at that time that will later elicit courting and mating in the adult. Most birds will readily imprint on whatever bird raises them. In fact, early exposure can cause a nestling to imprint even on a non-bird or an inanimate object. Thus, Ardrey (1969) describes a case of a peacock raised in a reptile house at the Vienna Zoo imprinting on a giant tortoise. It followed the tortoise everywhere. "And," as Ardrey says (p. 125),

when time came for such matters, the maturing white peacock fell in love with the tortoise. The bird refused to eat if removed from the reptile house. Neither would he give eye or least affection to the most attractive peahen the keeper could find. He had pledged his troth as birds will do, and monogamous instincts kept his heart unwavering. Through quite a long life the white peacock never left the reptile house, or ceased to follow his tortoise about.

Konrad Lorenz (1952, 1972: vol. I) studied this phenomenon in a variety of birds. One of his jackdaws treated him as if he were its mate. Lorenz also had a goose and rooster that were attracted to each other and not to individuals of their own kind. He had ducklings that followed him wherever he went. By exposing newly hatched geese to a beach ball, he convinced them forever afterward that the ball was their mother.

Computers are programmed by someone, they do not design, build and reproduce without a program installed by someone with skill....humans and all other living things are programmed as well. Who is their programmer?

If I suggested it's along the same lines as the snowflake, we might be able to agree!

Tag...you're it.

 

[JayJayDee]

But there are plenty of imperfections in nature. The linked article is pretty shoddy and simplistic in it's treatment, but I'm happy to bury you under a thousand articles with more merit if it adds any value.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?_r=0

Since there is much that the Bible does not tell us about a lot of things, imperfections in nature can be the product of the same felon that was responsible for the imperfection in us.

According to Jesus, God gave rulership of this world over to the devil as a means for humans to learn first hand (and with very little intervention from himself) what sort of a rotter they had chosen as their god and ruler.

Isaiah 65:25 says, "“The wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull; and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” Jehovah has said."

"And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. 7 And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. 8 And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. 9 They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea." (Isa 11:6-9)

This is a prophesy about the future, when the earth will return to it's rightful ruler.
Since no harm or ruin will be seen in the animal kingdom then, it seems to me that it was likely meant to be this way under God's first purpose. That to me indicates that satan's rule over the earth is responsible for a lot of things that are so very wrong in our experience of life. Seems as though the animals are adversely affected as well as us.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'paradise settings', but I would suggest humans have traditionally tried to explain away the unknown via the supernatural. Death is the great unknown, in many ways. Interestingly, religions don't commonly try to explain away pre-conception, which I find odd. Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding. When is a soul 'born', in your view?

The Paradise I refer to is not heaven. It is those places here on earth that people are naturally drawn to. They are appealing to just about everyone. Whether that image is sun drenched, pristine beaches in the tropics, or a mountain rainforest, or snow capped mountains in the alps, we each have our own vision of paradise and people spend a motza every year having holidays there.

JW's do not believe that they are all going to heaven. Earth was man's first home and we believe that it was always God's intention for us to live here, forever.
We do not believe that we have an immortal soul that departs the body at death. When you die, you go into your grave to await a resurrection back to life here on earth. (Eccl 9:5, 6,10; John 5:28, 29) We don't believe that we have lived before, but that each person was the product of their parents gene pool and that their DNA shaped their personality from conception. Life experiences then shape the personality from birth onwards.

Adam was not "given" a soul, but "became" one when God began the breathing process. Souls breathe and have blood in their veins. The soul dies. (Ezek 18:4)

Earth was not a training ground for heaven, but was originally intended to be man's permanent home. A small number have been chosen to rule with Christ in heaven, but the majority of us will live on earth in the paradise conditions that Adam lost.

Death was not part of God's original plan. There was the means to keep humans alive forever in their paradise home. (Gen 3:22-24) Whatever the tree was, eating from it meant continued life.....no aging, no sickness, no death.
Being mortal didn't mean they had to die....only that they could lose their life if they disobeyed their Creator's instructions.

 

[JayJayDee]

Hmmm...not the parents, no. But God is like the ultimate doctor, in what is admittedly stretching in terms of an analogy. He could, at any time, remove the fault, or limit it's effect to a single generation. I find it hard to mesh this understanding of the permanent effect of original sin with any concept of a merciful or loving (or objectively good) God.

Again, it has to do with God's dealing with rebellion among free willed creatures.
He could do one of two things; he could take away their free will (and make them like mindless robots, incapable of making any choices) or he could teach all his intelligent creatures the value of obedience by an object lesson that would set precedents for all eternity and retain the gift of free will. He chose the latter.

The object lesson is, you get what you wish for. Since our first parents chose independence and death, they sentenced their progeny to the same fate. Right there in Eden, a rescue mission was launched for Adam's children. But time is the problem. Counting in earth years, it certainly has taken a very long time indeed. But in a universal timeframe, it is only about a week. LOL

When talking about infinite beings, time really doesn't mean much. The first rebel was not human so things are sorted in his timeframe, not ours. We are just the hostages. The ransom has been paid and we are awaiting our release.

Since death is the end of conscious life, no one has to wait for God to fix up the earth longer than their own lifetime. So you see, technically speaking, it does get fixed in a single generation. Time ceases in the grave.

But most ideas of God, and pretty much all ideas of religion are too fanciful for me, not that I'd generally express it that way. Atheism is pretty much my default position, and I've never had a reason to doubt it. I'm good at keeping an open mind in my life, and I do listen, but with religion in particular it's hard for me to be open-minded, since I am at heart a rationalist.

I have always been a spiritual person, but I lost all faith in the church system in my late teens when my father died suddenly from a massive heart attack. No one could make sense of it for me and I started to lose my faith in the God I had always believed in. Not until I studied the Bible with JW's was my faith completely restored.

Second manner for me looking at it is more around the details of belief. You're putting your faith not just into God, but into the Bible. I understand how you view the Bible, but there is really no reason (from my viewpoint) to place so much faith into a book which is written and edited by man.

I happen to believe that a being capable of constructing the universe would have no trouble at all dictating and preserving his message to his children. We deserved an explanation for our suffering and a reason why it could be justified. The Bible has been twisted by more people than you can poke a stick at, but there is one truth and its in there. But it is only revealed to those who sincerely seek to know the God who had it written.

 

[JayJayDee]

I mistrust anything that has a definitive stance on ANYTHING...lol Which is not the same as saying I'm a conspiracy theorist, or anything like that. Far from it. I tend to apply Occam's Razor pretty liberally in absence of definitive 'proof' (whatever THAT means!). In simple terms, when looking at Creation, I am comfortable with us not knowing. I'd prefer to know, but a hundred years ago we didn't know how to build a computer. Fifty years ago there were no heart transplants. Well, you get the point. There are such a MASSIVE number of things we don't know, that I never have any issue with science saying it doesn't know. The very concept of scientific proof is misunderstood by most anyway.

I like simplicity myself. That was the reason I found JW's explanations of the Bible so appealing. The story was so simple, even a child could comprehend it. There was no need of a university degree in languages, no Theological Diploma, no fancy title attached to your name, just a simple scenario that explained everything. Adam lost it, Christ came to get it back. Not rocket science.

Suffice to say, if I saw cause to believe there was a Creator of some description, some flavour of Deism would make more sense to me than anything else. Simplest explanations, and all that.

How simple would you like it?

But you can apply it to not just science, or spirituality, but to EVERYTHING. For example, I am a big believer in studying history, and learning it's lessons. I think the perspective it provides is invaluable. But it's heavy stuff, and a slow burn, contradictory, and difficult. And time is ALWAYS an issue. But from my point of view, there is far more value in studying history, than spirituality. Philosophy rather than theology.

I am inclined to agree here. History has valuable lessons and I believe that the Bible's history also has much to teach us if we are not close minded. History is tangible, spirituality is mysterious. Theology is man made interpretation of scriptural things, twisted to fit their own view. Philosophy seems to be infinite reasoning without coming to definite conclusions. I personally find it frustrating.

I like the Bible to tell the story for itself, which it does if you lose all the add-ons. (plug-ins?)LOL

Despite how that sounds, I actually read a lot about religions. But I tend to be more interested in their effect and impact on the world, than the minute detail of their beliefs. I read about those too, it's just the kind of guy I am, but the motivator for me is how behaviour is influenced by belief, and what role religion has played in society.

Again, I heartily agree. I hate hypocrisy personally. It is what turned me off the churches. They emphasized giving but concentrated on getting.They praised the 'Prince of Peace' with one corner of their mouth and glorified the god of war with the other. Jehovah told his ancient people..."And when you spread out your palms, I hide my eyes from you. Even though you make many prayers, I am not listening; with bloodshed your very hands have become filled" (Isa 1:15) In two World Wars, Catholic killed Catholic and Protestant killed Protestant because their governments told them to. Christ told them not to. (Matt 5:44; 1 John 4:20, 21)

So, I've had this one raised to me many times. I'll give me standard answer and ask in what sense I might be spiritual?

Humans are born spiritual. There are no more spiritual creatures on earth than young children. It is a part of them that needs nurturing or else it will shrivel and die. Once it is gone, it is very hard to revive it, but some go searching for God later in life, not quite being satisfied with the emptiness that a purely material existence provides. Many express feeling an emptiness in their psyche that material things just cannot fill.

Your worldview assumes there is a spirit/soul within us all, and that I'm either suppressing/ignoring/starving it, I would suspect.

Some people search for God at a particular time in their lives, maybe like me, with the death of someone close, needing answers because they could find no peace and no comfort for the loss.

Assuming you're a kindly type, this might lead you to feel slightly sad or sorry on my behalf. Whereas my worldview causes the same problem in reverse. Sprituality provides the means to make sense and function within an oftentimes confusing world, but it's an unwieldly human construct on top of our true selves. Strip it off, and you can function much more cohesively, consistently, and with less doubt. So I feel mildly frustrated by sprituality, since I think it's unrequired.

I can understand your viewpoint. But for JW's there is no soul inhabiting a body that lives on after death. The spirit in man can mean many things, but spirituality is the inherent part of man that feels a need to worship...something or someone. It is demonstrated in every culture on earth and is expressed in a multitude of ways. It is a powerful need obviously. (though not so strong in a world that has killed God off and replaced him with science.) The Bible explains why we are spiritual and how we came to worship false gods. (anything we substitute for him)

Having said that, I would acknowledge that many people DO seem to need it. If I'm being completely open and honest, I try hard not to see that as a weakness. I would be the first to admit that atheism offers answers for pretty much nothing. It's merely the removal of that religious and spiritual superstructure I mentioned. What you're left with can be good, bad or somewhere in the middle. And since I am a proponent of subjective morality, I think it's very important to be 'good'. And if sprituality helps one to achieve that, then any scoffing from me would be intellectual snobbery.

That is the point, I think. We need answers to life's questions and spirituality fills that need. Atheism offers no answers, no comfort, no hope. I cannot exist in a hopeless world, totally reliant on man to fix something he continues to break. I have no faith in man's ability to fix anything.

Have you read much about the end of the first Millenium? It was interesting the level to which Biblical surety of the End of Days was generally proclaimed. And the JW themselves have had a few false starts when offering dates. Ultimately, though , I don't see the importance. Assuming your version of God exists, then we should be living by his laws, full stop. Regardless of if the End of Days is tomorrow or in a century of centuries. And if your version of God doesn't exist, then...

Yes, "the end" has been spoken about as immanent for a very long time in human years, but that means very little when you understand the timeframe in which the Creator operates. There have been some years about which we speculated but that was all it was. Jesus said "no one knows the day or the hour" when he will return to judge the earth. We have hoped that this year or that might see the end come, but Jehovah has placed that squarely in his own jurisdiction.

Cont'd tomorrow

 

[JayJayDee]

OK now, where were we?

-CONT
See, there are a whole raft of details I see in the Bible and have issues with. I don't often raise them with Christians, since I don't see the Bible as infallible, I see it as a document created and selectively compiled by men. Even assuming a God, and that his message was conveyed, there is room for Biblical error because of this. And then, after mutliple translations, I'd see it as virtually certain that the Bible has errors, even supposing God.

But if you're reliant on the Bible as a source of everything, this would seem to be of vastly more import.

I guess this is what "faith" means in its purest essence. The Bible itself acknowledges that 'faith is not the possession of all people'. What makes one person exercise complete faith and another to demonstrate extreme skepticism? Is it not negative life experiences? Is it not to a great degree, outside influence? We have to evaluate it all in our own heart.

As I mentioned earlier, I have no issue with a Creator who has the power to create the universe, inspiring men to record and preserve his message. It is not the actual words of the Bible that are inspired but the essence of the message. Look at the gospels to see that the message is conveyed by all four of them. Some include information that others leave out, but as a whole, it tells one story.

My assumption with life is much the same as with everything else. Nothing is at 'full function'. It is somewhere along the continuum. I'm mistrustful of black and white. I'm a healthy approaching 40's male, play sports, eat fairly healthy, etc. I've had no major health issues, and nothing I'd even call minor, to be honest. I have no mental illnesses. So, am I 'functioning at full capacity'? (err...even ignoring the fact that I'm obviously spiritually dead...lol)

I remember 40! LOL

Realizing that humans do not function at full capacity is not really a surprise when the Bible's entire scenario is taken into consideration. It is explained quite clearly.

I think of savants and the incredible abilities they display in art, music or mathematics and think to myself...this is a pocket of genius displayed in a person with intellectual disability that may well be a throwback to the perfection of a fully functioning human brain at its peak of performance. The very fact that this capability is demonstrated at all speaks volumes to me about the abilities we should all naturally possess. Who of us would not love to be able to do things that are at present beyond our capabilities? Imagine being able to successfully accomplish all that you had in mind to do? I believe that this was God's first purpose. The frustration we feel when we can't quite turn out something perfect reflects a 'programmed' expectation of our abilities.

Absolutely amazing and awe inspiring. I totally agree. Obviously not about the design aspects. So, whilst it's clumsy labelling, are JWs basically proponents of an ID type model of creation and adaption?

We whole-heartedly accept that we have a supreme designer and that ability to adapt to environmental change is inherent in all living things. This is what is demonstrated in micro-evolution, which we accept without question. It is provable. But macro-evolution is a whole other story. Taking micro-evolution and stretching it to limits beyond what is provable, takes us into the realms of faith. Macro-evolutionists are as reliant on faith as they think Bible believers are IMHO.

Me too! I trust questions. They tend to be right. Answers not so much...lol

There is something about the ring of truth that resonates with the inner person, sometimes even against their will.
Jesus said those with faith in God would "know the truth" when we heard it and that it would "set us free". That freedom has to be experienced to explain the full dimensions of it.

My interest with termite mounds...(and bee hives, good example, but I'll stick to termites)...is that if you came across those having never seen one before, would you identify it as a house? What would you think of the builder? What would you think about their capacity for design? Or would you think it was a natural structure?

What is a "natural" structure? What structure that is "home" to a living creature has not been created to some extent by him? Even gorillas will use tree branches to construct a nest for themselves.
Birds construct nests of infinite variety, exclusive to their "kind". Who teaches them to construct these nests when they were not around to learn from their parents?

Migrating birds, whales and even butterflies can navigate vast distances over open ocean...how does their navigation system work when creatures of superior intelligence (namely humans) can easily get lost at sea? Without knowledge learned from others, humans are fairly useless when left to their own devices. Animals operate by internal laws, programmed instinct, but man has to operate by things learned from others. This leaves him open to bad influences as well as good.

Man alone has a moral code and a conscience. Man alone can be altruistic when he chooses to be. Man alone can contemplate the future and even his own demise. Animals do not demonstrate these qualities. They have a flight response but can they really understand that they can die? How do animals naturally respond to death?

My guess is that you would apply your knowledge of other things to make the decision. That you would, for example, look for evidence of something living in it. That you might check for an opening, to see how things could get in and out, if you suspected a burrow or hive. That you might break a piece off to study it's composition, and check the internal workings and structure. And that based on this scientific examination, make your best guess as to what it was. Assuming the termites are not present, you'd rely on things like the diameter of the passages, the presence of an egg-laying area, etc, to make best guess judgements on who inhabited the mound.

Why would I apply a different set of rules to everything else?

I apply what what I know to everything I see. Wherever I see something that demonstrates genius, I know that a clever mind designed and created it. Nothing in my experience tells me that the tools I use every day, even a simple mouse trap, didn't need someone to think it up, design the individual components and assemble them to produce a working model. Why would I use a different set of rules to make judgments about creation?

7 animals that eat their own kind - The Week

Out of billions of life forms, you found a whole 7? Some of them are only cannibals but not mothers eating their own young when when they would not hesitate to eat the young of others.

Reproduce rather than mate? Well, that's one of the measures of 'kind' I would assume. But if you mean mate with their own kind, it's more complicated. Could write a lot on that, but as a starting point;

Prevalence of Animal Hybrids

Hybrids exist because of the genetic barriers put in place by the Creator. Horses and donkeys produce mules. But mules don't reproduce other mules. It is the end of the genetic line. Genesis "kinds" seem to be those where interbreeding "can" take place, but do not result in natural matings in the wild. "Kinds" only remain "kinds" when separated by the natural response of mating with their own species. Zebras don't mate with horses...tigers don't mate with lions....species stay separate because God designed them to stay separate.

What would happen if fish all interbred? Your favorite fish would not exist....you could cast out a line and bring in something weird with no name. Zoos would be full of strange creatures with dubious parentage. "Kinds" exist for a reason. There is order and precision in design, even in the weirdest creatures. There is order and design demonstrated in nature.

Each species has a name and a history. Each is beautiful and wonderful in its own way. I can give credit to such a designer and Creator and look forward, with absolute confidence to what he has told us will occur in the future.

Computers are programmed by someone, they do not design, build and reproduce without a program installed by someone with skill....humans and all other living things are programmed as well. Who is their programmer?

If I suggested it's along the same lines as the snowflake, we might be able to agree!

Tag...you're it.

The snowflake is just one small example of creative genius. Computers are also the result of creative genius, but we don't assume they came into existence as the result of blind forces...do we?

Back to you.....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okies, so these call and response type posts are getting a little out of hand, length-wise...lol
I'll cherry-pick a few items out that either piqued my interest, or I think are...erm...controversial? Debateable? I dunno. Anyways...

Paradise settings. Okay, so I misunderstood, since I thought you were alluding to eternal life. Talking to a JW is a little different to talking to a Catholic (for example), I'll admit that.

I don't see any reason why we wouldn't all be drawn to certain types of settings. Or at least, most of us. It's in human nature to compare and contrast, and that plus our imagination lead us to constantly comparing where we are to where we wish we were. Interestingly, sometimes the FACT of going to an 'idyllic setting' pales to the pre-conceived perfection of it. But, yeah, we do tend to have a 'paradise setting' in that sense. We're not going to agree on cause...lol

Again, it has to do with God's dealing with rebellion among free willed creatures.
He could do one of two things; he could take away their free will (and make them like mindless robots, incapable of making any choices) or he could teach all his intelligent creatures the value of obedience by an object lesson that would set precedents for all eternity and retain the gift of free will. He chose the latter.

I'd fundamentally disagree with this. I'm trying to see the JW view, but why would you limit God's choices to two? He can leave them their independence, and make each responsible for their own decisions. That's more akin to natural justice. Should I punish one of my daughters if the other misbehaves?

The object lesson is, you get what you wish for. Since our first parents chose independence and death, they sentenced their progeny to the same fate. Right there in Eden, a rescue mission was launched for Adam's children. But time is the problem. Counting in earth years, it certainly has taken a very long time indeed. But in a universal timeframe, it is only about a week. LOL

I understand what you're saying about a univeral timeframe. And again, I'll try and ask questions within your framework. And again, I'll use a fairly simplistic analogy to try and illustrate.
If I am a person who is trying to believe in God, isn't it possible that I see the punishment of each generation with the sins of the first as a gross misjustice, and that this leads me away from God? And if so, whilst the universal timeframe applies in the manner you spoke, that in no way redeems the lost soul (for want of a better term) who lost faith because of this? So, whilst the universal timeframe might make some sense (although I'm not sure...do you see God as omnipotent and outside time?), it in no way applies to a soul who is lost to the faith. I'm sure your response will be along the lines of God having given them a chance to redeem themselves through his message, but using a human mind (which he designed) and trying to apply a message of a universal God alongside concepts of natural justice could cause some pretty interesting cognitive dissonance.

I happen to believe that a being capable of constructing the universe would have no trouble at all dictating and preserving his message to his children. We deserved an explanation for our suffering and a reason why it could be justified. The Bible has been twisted by more people than you can poke a stick at, but there is one truth and its in there. But it is only revealed to those who sincerely seek to know the God who had it written.

I don't understand how we deserve an explanation and reason for our suffering, yet you don't question whether we deserve our suffering?
And yes, the Bible has been twisted. One aspect of Christianity I am fairly well versed in is the historical early church (4th century forwards).

So how is the message viewed now? How was the JW version arrived at, and how tightly does it relate to the 'original' material? And problems with some of the prophecies and historical accuracy...is that important to your worldview, or explainable entirely as human error post-original?

How simple would you like it?

lol...very simple. I'm a pretty simple man, at the heart of it. But an absence of human construct would be a good start.

Your thoughts on history and hypocrisy are interesting. It's not the first time that I've seen parallels between some some...erm...more formal religious thought(?), and some atheistic thought. To tell the truth one thing I have always taught myself to do, though, is to take wisdom from wherever I arrive at it. When I was a younger man, and a bit more earnest (I guess...!) I did a lot of writing, and kept scrapbooks with quotes and snippets that really made me think. Lots of politics, lots of song lyrics, and a surprising number of religious quotes. Drawing on a single source for the truth, and then applying everything else back to that is just a very foreign concept to me.

Your comments around the soul are interesting. I'll have to do some reading, I think. They're a little different to what I was expecting/assuming. Blind spot on my part. Is jw.org a decent resource for finding out more about how the JWs view the soul?

That is the point, I think. We need answers to life's questions and spirituality fills that need. Atheism offers no answers, no comfort, no hope. I cannot exist in a hopeless world, totally reliant on man to fix something he continues to break. I have no faith in man's ability to fix anything.

Hmmm...this is a hard one for me to convey properly. Even some atheists, I think, would struggle to understand this. I know for me it took a few years to truly get my head around this. Well...not really my head. I think intellectually I got it...more like...erm...it took a while for what my head was telling me to truly fit 100% comfortably.

(Sidenote...I kinda believe everything comes from the head, right? So, logic and emotion are both from the head. But everyone uses shorthand of brain for logic, and heart, or soul, or whatever for emotion...lol)

So, here goes my attempted explanation. First, you have to look at this from my view of the world, and try to walk in my shoes for a second. Otherwise it won't make sense. Might be hard though...lol

First, there is no God. There is no higher power, and no objective morality. I don't know if we're actually alone in the universe, but for the sake of simplicity, we are.

Let's assume for a second that I WANTED there to be God. That I thought one of the various religions made an enormous amount of sense in terms of their moral teachings, that it had a positive impact on the people following it. That I wanted to be able to tell my girls that death was not the end. EVEN THEN I would be an atheist. I would take what I could from the religion, I'd analyse it's teachings, look at it's morals, and try to apply it to my life where it helped me develop as a human.

I think that will make sense to you. I get a sense that you truly believe in the religion you follow, which is obviously not always the case. As a true believer, you would follow the religion regardless of how easy it is. In the same sense, I am a true non-believer.

So whether I espouse atheism or not. Whether you are a JW or not. It makes no difference on the ultimate truth in terms of God. We'd agree on that, I think. So far so good, right? This is the part that's hard...

From my point of view, any humans following a religion are handing over the keys to their own car, so to speak. The religion might be a good 'driver' or it might not, but I'd far prefer my own ability to drive my own car. I do it with caution, I don't make rash decisions, and I am good at thinking through the ramifications. To the point of driving my wife crazy, in some cases...lol

So, whilst you'd see atheism as a world view which lacks hope or answers, from my point of view it's COMPLETELY in reverse to that. Atheism can be the absolute hope that humanity is capable of driving it's own car. You might even view that as hopelessly optimistic from your view of the world, but just remember, you can't really accuse an atheist of being both hopelessly optimistic AND following a 'faith' which offers no hope.

Meh...I've probably explained that no better than I have before. I can only tell you that I am by nature a very calm, balanced person, with a positive view of humanity, and an optimistic outlook on life. Despite everything. And whilst I have heard the viewpoint put forth in a lot of ways by a lot of people, I am honestly at a loss as to what my 'spiritual' side is, or what it is I 'worship'.

cont-

 

[lewisnotmiller]

cont-

Ok, I wanted to tackle this one briefly...

I guess this is what "faith" means in its purest essence. The Bible itself acknowledges that 'faith is not the possession of all people'. What makes one person exercise complete faith and another to demonstrate extreme skepticism? Is it not negative life experiences? Is it not to a great degree, outside influence? We have to evaluate it all in our own heart.

I wouldn't say my skepticism is extreme. But it's consistent...lol.
But just for balance, I was raised in a traditional nuclear family, and have one sister. My parents are both mildly religious, my mum moreso than my Dad. They made sure I had a religious grounding, from their point of view (Church of England). My sister is a non-practicing Christian. Working class suburb, I was the first one in my family to go to Uni, where several of my close friends were practicing Christians of various flavours (err...no JWs though...).
Met my (now) wife when I was 21. Scratch that, met her earlier, started dating when I was 21. I'm not almost 39, with 2 kids and still with her. She's the only woman I've ever slept with, and hopefully that remains true for the rest of my life.

Fair to say that if anything has led me to atheism it's intellectual reductionism. Not negative life experience, a lack of love, or anything along those lines. Nor has there been a strong atheistic influence on me in a personal sense. Just wanted to put that out there...it's important for you to understand my views are calmly held, long arrived at, and are in no way reactionary.

In terms of Intelligent Design, we have very different viewpoints on that. But in terms of JW understanding and views, I think I'm more educated. Happy to discuss evolution until the cow's come home if you like, but otherwise I'll thank for you letting me know JW point of view and leave it at that.

Which brings me to my favourite topic. Termite mounds!! (what else?)

What is a "natural" structure? What structure that is "home" to a living creature has not been created to some extent by him? Even gorillas will use tree branches to construct a nest for themselves.
Birds construct nests of infinite variety, exclusive to their "kind". Who teaches them to construct these nests when they were not around to learn from their parents?

Meh. I think I was unclear on my point. One of your arguments for a Creator is a supposition that when coming across something like a house, we realise that it has a designer, yet when considering the Universe, we think it could be undesigned.

If you had NEVER seen a termite mound before, or heard of them, and were presented with this;

You might need to determine whether it is natural (ie. a rock) or constructed. On initial viewing, it is no easy matter to determine that it was constructed. This is before you can make your determination that there is a Creator. So how would you determine whether it was constructed or not? That is my point. That a scientific approach would be the best manner to determine it it was constructed, and to provide the best guess at WHO constructed it, in that case.

Now...what else. Oh, the 7 life forms? It was merely a very quick example. The point is, there are animals that eat their young. You believe God gave animals the instinct not to. I suppose your views on the Deceiver would be the manner for explaining the dissonance? I could probably find a LOT more examples. I literally spent 5 seconds on google.

Which leads me to animal responses to death. It depends on the animal, and my broad brush comment would be that intelligence is an important pre-condition for the sort of higher thought you are talking about. But my firm belief in this, as with all else, is that there isn't a hard line between animals and humans, but shades of grey. Sure, we might be at one end of the spectrum, and all other creatures might be far 'below' in terms of higher thought, but not all animals are the same, and intelligent animals do demonstrate some understanding of death, and certainly respond to it.

Chimps' emotional response to death caught on film | Science | theguardian.com

Hybrids exist because of the genetic barriers put in place by the Creator. Horses and donkeys produce mules. But mules don't reproduce other mules. It is the end of the genetic line. Genesis "kinds" seem to be those where interbreeding "can" take place, but do not result in natural matings in the wild. "Kinds" only remain "kinds" when separated by the natural response of mating with their own species. Zebras don't mate with horses...tigers don't mate with lions....species stay separate because God designed them to stay separate.

This is why I was being picky about mating vs breeding.
Zebroid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's worth noting that not ALL hybrids are infertile.

What would happen if fish all interbred? Your favorite fish would not exist....you could cast out a line and bring in something weird with no name.

Plants commonly cross-fertilize, but this hasn't been the end result. Besides, common ancestry, and divergence does not indicate everything would be able to interbreed with everything else. I don't understand how you see this as suggestive of a Creator? It would be like me saying evolution is proof that there is NO creator.

Zoos would be full of strange creatures with dubious parentage. "Kinds" exist for a reason. There is order and precision in design, even in the weirdest creatures. There is order and design demonstrated in nature.

Actually, not when you get down to details. Only at a 'usually' level does the animal kingdom demonstrate the level of order you are talking about. I can explain this through evolutionary theory much more easily than you can through the theory of a Creator. Why should there be exceptions to these rules if there is a Creator? Common ancestry and divurgence thereafter makes more sense than 'kinds' in my opinion.

Each species has a name and a history. Each is beautiful and wonderful in its own way. I can give credit to such a designer and Creator and look forward, with absolute confidence to what he has told us will occur in the future.

Honest question for you. Do you believe there were ever dinosaurs? If so, does that mean you believe there were dinosaurs on earth at the same time as cats, dogs and humans? Or did God create different species over time?

The snowflake is just one small example of creative genius. Computers are also the result of creative genius, but we don't assume they came into existence as the result of blind forces...do we?

Well, in my case, yes for the snowflake, no for the computer. One is designed and made, one is naturally formed. I'm still surprised that you think God makes each snowflake, to be honest...lol

Hmm...can't find any appropriate emoticons, but suffice to say, your turn!

 

[JayJayDee]

Okies, so these call and response type posts are getting a little out of hand, length-wise...lol

:yes:

I'll cherry-pick a few items out that either piqued my interest,

I'll try that too.....

Paradise settings. Okay, so I misunderstood, since I thought you were alluding to eternal life. Talking to a JW is a little different to talking to a Catholic (for example)

I sincerely hope so.

I don't see any reason why we wouldn't all be drawn to certain types of settings. Or at least, most of us. It's in human nature to compare and contrast, and that plus our imagination lead us to constantly comparing where we are to where we wish we were. Interestingly, sometimes the FACT of going to an 'idyllic setting' pales to the pre-conceived perfection of it. But, yeah, we do tend to have a 'paradise setting' in that sense. We're not going to agree on cause...lol

I lived in the country for some years, (west of the divide) and it always struck me that the livestock sometimes had the best views in town, overlooking the lake and surrounds, it was really breathtaking....for me, but not the cows. All they cared about was the grass. Why are only humans affected by the beauty in vistas? Why do we paint landscapes and hang them on our walls? Do you see animals doing that?

I'd fundamentally disagree with this. I'm trying to see the JW view, but why would you limit God's choices to two? He can leave them their independence, and make each responsible for their own decisions. That's more akin to natural justice. Should I punish one of my daughters if the other misbehaves?

No but punishing your innocent daughter would be a deliberate miscarriage of justice. From God's perspective, he sentenced the first humans to death. We have no idea how that sentence was carried out genetically speaking, but whatever the defect was, it spread to all his children. Adam was responsible for that, not God, since there was only one cause of death in the garden. And since death is the end of life, no dead ones are suffering in any conscious place. A restoration to life will take place in the future, probably a bit like the chryo-dead; frozen in time waiting for a future cure for what ailed them. Some have merely frozen their head, others have DNA to clone themselves later on....

If I am a person who is trying to believe in God, isn't it possible that I see the punishment of each generation with the sins of the first as a gross misjustice, and that this leads me away from God?

I guess we are all free to evaluate things for ourselves. But again, how can some take polar opposite stances based on the same information? Fascinating isn't it?

And if so, whilst the universal timeframe applies in the manner you spoke, that in no way redeems the lost soul (for want of a better term) who lost faith because of this?

No soul is lost who does not really want to be. When we say "lost" what do we mean actually?

So, whilst the universal timeframe might make some sense (although I'm not sure...do you see God as omnipotent and outside time?), it in no way applies to a soul who is lost to the faith. I'm sure your response will be along the lines of God having given them a chance to redeem themselves through his message, but using a human mind (which he designed) and trying to apply a message of a universal God alongside concepts of natural justice could cause some pretty interesting cognitive dissonance.

God's justice, as I see it is absolute. He does not allow sentiment to sway implementation of the stated sentence. As sinners we are all deserving of death, period. (Rom 5:12) That applies regardless of how sin was passed along to us, pretty much the same way that a genetic disorder is inherited and there is no cure. No one wants death or suffering to occur but it is a natural consequence of inheriting the faulty gene.

Justice, however can be tempered with mercy when it is warranted, and this is what prompted God to balance the scales of justice by sending his son to die in our place, legally speaking. In Israel, a slave could be sold to pay a debt. In connection with mankind, the price was too high for any other human to offer for what Adam forfeited..perfect life....all were now imperfect, defective.

Under the law, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" equivalency was demanded to pay for any wrongdoing. The life Adam forfeited, was perfect, so to satisfy the demands of justice, an equivalent (perfect) life had to be offered in his place. This is why Jesus had to come from outside the now imperfect human race.

I don't understand how we deserve an explanation and reason for our suffering, yet you don't question whether we deserve our suffering?

We obviously deserved the redemption, or it would not have been offered.
The devil is a taunting so and so. (Prov 27:11) He points accusing fingers at God on our account and leads people down the "it's not fair" path. That doesn't take them anywhere but away from God and the truth.

And yes, the Bible has been twisted. One aspect of Christianity I am fairly well versed in is the historical early church (4th century forwards).

The "church's" history, especially from Constantine's time onward is a long account of bloodshed, corruption and apostasy. Jesus warned that his enemy would sow seeds of false Christianity and history attests to the truthfulness of his statement.

So how is the message viewed now? How was the JW version arrived at, and how tightly does it relate to the 'original' material?

I believe that the "church" deviated from Christ's teachings in the early centuries. Pagan beliefs and festivals were grafted in, given a Christian label, and changing Christianity into a 'weed-like' imitation of the original.

 

[JayJayDee]

And problems with some of the prophecies and historical accuracy...is that important to your worldview, or explainable entirely as human error post-original?

The Bible's prophesies are all very accurate, but sometimes human interpretation is a bit off in the timing. It doesn't mean that the prophesy is false, just that we sometimes hoped for things when it was not the time for them to take place. God has his own timetable and he tells us that things will happen right on schedule...His schedule, not ours.

The message of the "church" and the message of Jehovah's Witnesses' couldn't be further apart.
We believe that we are living in "the time of the end", foretold by Daniel. (Dan 12:4, 9, 10) It was to be a time of cleansing and refining because so many beliefs and customs had been introduced over the centuries, that if Jesus came back tomorrow, he would not even recognize the Christianity he established.

Your thoughts on history and hypocrisy are interesting. It's not the first time that I've seen parallels between some some...erm...more formal religious thought(?), and some atheistic thought. To tell the truth one thing I have always taught myself to do, though, is to take wisdom from wherever I arrive at it......Drawing on a single source for the truth, and then applying everything else back to that is just a very foreign concept to me.

Drawing wisdom from life experiences is a good thing. But sometimes life experiences can be life altering. By following the Bible's laws and principles, we can often avoid the heartache that comes from lapses in judgment.

Drawing scriptural truth from just one source makes sense to me. If there is one source of truth and the Creator is that source, it makes no sense to me to try drinking water from different springs. One source is proven to be clean and healthful, but the others have been poisoned by an enemy.

Your comments around the soul are interesting. I'll have to do some reading, I think. They're a little different to what I was expecting/assuming. Blind spot on my part. Is jw.org a decent resource for finding out more about how the JWs view the soul?

These might help...

Soul — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Search — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY[]=dx&p=par

(Sidenote...I kinda believe everything comes from the head, right? So, logic and emotion are both from the head. But everyone uses shorthand of brain for logic, and heart, or soul, or whatever for emotion...lol)

The Bible does too. But logically the brain is the command centre for everything, the other body parts are figurative for the most part, conveying something deeper.

This is the part that's hard...

From my point of view, any humans following a religion are handing over the keys to their own car, so to speak. The religion might be a good 'driver' or it might not, but I'd far prefer my own ability to drive my own car. I do it with caution, I don't make rash decisions, and I am good at thinking through the ramifications. To the point of driving my wife crazy, in some cases...lol

You sound like a well balanced individual and your demeanor indicates that you are very rational and relaxed in your attitudes. It's nice to talk to someone who is not threatened by disagreement.

Having said that, Solomon wrote: "Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight. Do not become wise in your own eyes."

This tells humans that they should not trust themselves to get to the desired destination under their own steam. He also said: "There exists a way that is upright before a man, but the ways of death are the end of it afterward."

That is a lousy way to find out that you had it all wrong.

The track record of humans making wise decisions about life down through time, is hardly the stuff of confidence. I don't trust humans to tell the truth. I trust that God is the only one who cannot lie.

So, whilst you'd see atheism as a world view which lacks hope or answers, from my point of view it's COMPLETELY in reverse to that. Atheism can be the absolute hope that humanity is capable of driving it's own car. You might even view that as hopelessly optimistic from your view of the world, but just remember, you can't really accuse an atheist of being both hopelessly optimistic AND following a 'faith' which offers no hope.

Optimism has to be based on more than wishful thinking though, surely? What do you see in today's world that fills you with confidence about the future? Judging by his track record, we cannot trust man to do anything for the good of others...only for himself, right here, right now. For every problem he solves, there are a hundred others created. We are drowning in the results of his failures. Earth itself is groaning under the burden of his impact on this planet.

I am honestly at a loss as to what my 'spiritual' side is, or what it is I 'worship'

A "spiritual" man is contrasted with a "physical" man in the Bible.

"These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by [the] spirit, as we combine spiritual [matters] with spiritual [words]. But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man" (1 Cor 2:13-15)

Perhaps you are just a "physical man"?

I'm really bad at condensing things aren't I?


More tomorrow......:sleep:

 

[JayJayDee]

Continued.....

I wouldn't say my skepticism is extreme. But it's consistent...lol.
But just for balance, I was raised in a traditional nuclear family, and have one sister. My parents are both mildly religious, my mum moreso than my Dad. They made sure I had a religious grounding, from their point of view (Church of England). My sister is a non-practicing Christian. Working class suburb, I was the first one in my family to go to Uni, where several of my close friends were practicing Christians of various flavours (err...no JWs though...).

Sounds a bit like my family growing up (just a bit earlier though); my folks were Cof E too but never went to church. They sent us kids to Sunday School every week though...with "the envelope".

I never questioned my "non-practicing Christian" parents but I came to realize that there is no such thing as a non-practicing Christian. You are either a Christian, with all that it means or you are not. Being a non-practicing Christian is sort of like being a little bit pregnant....

Met my (now) wife when I was 21. Scratch that, met her earlier, started dating when I was 21. I'm not almost 39, with 2 kids and still with her. She's the only woman I've ever slept with, and hopefully that remains true for the rest of my life.

Now, that is refreshing in this day and age.

In terms of Intelligent Design, we have very different viewpoints on that. But in terms of JW understanding and views, I think I'm more educated. Happy to discuss evolution until the cow's come home if you like, but otherwise I'll thank for you letting me know JW point of view and leave it at that.

JW's do not accept the "24 hour day" creation either story because it flies in the face of the geological record. The Genesis account does not fight with the earth and the universe being billions of years old. It just states that "In the beginning, God created" but gives no timeframe as to when the rest took place.

The creative days could well have been aeons of time. It just states that they had a beginning and an end. The term "day" doen't just mean a 24 hour period.
For an infinite being, time is not really relevant anyway.

Which brings me to my favourite topic. Termite mounds!! (what else?)

Yes, you fascination with termite mounds is duly noted.

Meh. I think I was unclear on my point. One of your arguments for a Creator is a supposition that when coming across something like a house, we realise that it has a designer, yet when considering the Universe, we think it could be undesigned.

To my way of thinking, something that is so breathtakingly vast and spectacular cannot possibly have come about by chance or accident. But that is the way my mind operates. It is only logical according to what I already know.

You might need to determine whether it is natural (ie. a rock) or constructed. On initial viewing, it is no easy matter to determine that it was constructed. This is before you can make your determination that there is a Creator. So how would you determine whether it was constructed or not? That is my point. That a scientific approach would be the best manner to determine it it was constructed, and to provide the best guess at WHO constructed it, in that case.

My mind works a little differently I suppose, because logic would force me to ask who created the creator of this marvel of design. Who taught them to construct this edifice? I don't look at the Opera House and assume that it popped into existence without skilled design and construction engineers who oversaw every aspect of its building.
The universe is far more complex than the Opera House.

Now...what else. Oh, the 7 life forms? It was merely a very quick example. The point is, there are animals that eat their young. You believe God gave animals the instinct not to. I suppose your views on the Deceiver would be the manner for explaining the dissonance? I could probably find a LOT more examples. I literally spent 5 seconds on google.

You can always find a few rare exceptions to every rule, but speaking generally, most do not eat their own young....do they?

Which leads me to animal responses to death. It depends on the animal, and my broad brush comment would be that intelligence is an important pre-condition for the sort of higher thought you are talking about. But my firm belief in this, as with all else, is that there isn't a hard line between animals and humans, but shades of grey. Sure, we might be at one end of the spectrum, and all other creatures might be far 'below' in terms of higher thought, but not all animals are the same, and intelligent animals do demonstrate some understanding of death, and certainly respond to it.

There is no doubting that. But animals seem to respond to death as a natural part of life. Animals who are designed to mate for life have some difficulty overcoming the loss of a mate. Animals that form family troupes, also have a distinct response to loss in the troupe. But it is not something that lingers like it does with humans. There are no burial rituals to speak of and it seems to me that it is more overcoming a programmed instinct, than genuine grief based on an understanding of death.

Even dogs can suffer separation anxiety.

This is why I was being picky about mating vs breeding.
Zebroid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's worth noting that not ALL hybrids are infertile.

But for the most part, hybrids are not the product of natural matings in the wild, and most ARE sterile as a general rule....with few exceptions.

Plants commonly cross-fertilize, but this hasn't been the end result. Besides, common ancestry, and divergence does not indicate everything would be able to interbreed with everything else. I don't understand how you see this as suggestive of a Creator? It would be like me saying evolution is proof that there is NO creator.

Just the way our logic works I guess.

Plants do not reproduce like animals. Insects pollinate plants for the most part. These insects are in turn programmed to be attracted to certain plants and not others.

Programming requires a programmer. As a computer man you know this.

 

[JayJayDee]

Actually, not when you get down to details. Only at a 'usually' level does the animal kingdom demonstrate the level of order you are talking about.

"“The wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull; and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” Jehovah has said." (Isa 65:25)

Again, I don't believe that animals function as the Creator intended in this world. Why else would he in indicate that animals that are at present carnivorous, will become herbivores in the world to come? (2 Pet 3:13) I know that is in the realms of fantasy to you, but it's what I believe in my heart. (spiritual mind?)

I can explain this through evolutionary theory much more easily than you can through the theory of a Creator. Why should there be exceptions to these rules if there is a Creator? Common ancestry and divurgence thereafter makes more sense than 'kinds' in my opinion.

Since you are admittedly a physical man with little spirituality, that is a reasonable choice for you....but not for me.
I accept micro-evolution without hesitation, but macro-evolution is a whole other story. That to me is like George Bush blaming 9/11 on Saddam Hussein and using it as an excuse to bomb the daylights out of Iraq. We all know it was because of the oil, but who listened? It was a false premise but no one seemed to notice.

Using examples of micro-evolution and then casing macro-evolution in language that is deliberately deceptive...making out that one proves the other is dishonest IMO.
Peer pressure plays its part too, if we are to be completely honest. What scientist want to appear to lack credibility to his peers by promoting something that is looked down upon? He would be deemed a fool.

Honest question for you. Do you believe there were ever dinosaurs? If so, does that mean you believe there were dinosaurs on earth at the same time as cats, dogs and humans? Or did God create different species over time?

Since remains have been discovered all over the world, it would be a rather ignorant person who denied their existence.

The evidence points to their extinction long before man's arrival however.

Since the creative periods were thousands of years in length, in all probability, many "kinds" were created along a timeline...with man at the end of it. I believe that the Bible records the order of the various "kinds" and that life began in the oceans.

More on our views here...
Search — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The vast array of dinosaurs with their huge appetites would have been appropriate considering the abundant vegetation that evidently existed in their time. (Genesis 1:20-24)
When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when.

Well, in my case, yes for the snowflake, no for the computer. One is designed and made, one is naturally formed. I'm still surprised that you think God makes each snowflake, to be honest...lol

I don't believe that I ever said that God made each snowflake....I said the design was his and that the conditions that are right for producing snowflakes, see them form in the way that he designed them.

It's a bit like conception. God does not create individual children and place them in a womb. He has designed the procreative process and once in place, life comes from the process that he decreed for the reproduction of life. Every species on earth follows their own peculiar mating rituals.
Have you watched the David Attenborough docos on birds? Some of their mating rituals are downright hilarious....but none of them can explain why they do it. It is just like nest building...it is programmed in to them. Each species has it's own unique ways.

Hmm...can't find any appropriate emoticons, but suffice to say, your turn!

I really struggle with condensing so will apologize for another tome.

Till next time....

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Haven't read this whole thread but I would like to say I never celebrated my birthday while growing up and didn't "suffer" for it. I am actually glad that I never did celebrate it, I find it too restricting when I hear other people say "oh I can't go out to do something I prefer to do, because it's my sister's birthday." I would like my family and friends to have the freedom to do what they want to do even on my birthday and not feel obligated to spend time with me when they they don't want to and I don't want to feel obligated to be with them on my birthday either.

 

[JayJayDee]

Haven't read this whole thread but I would like to say I never celebrated my birthday while growing up and didn't "suffer" for it. I am actually glad that I never did celebrate it, I find it too restricting when I hear other people say "oh I can't go out to do something I prefer to do, because it's my sister's birthday." I would like my family and friends to have the freedom to do what they want to do even on my birthday and not feel obligated to spend time with me when they they don't want to and I don't want to feel obligated to be with them on my birthday either.

You sound very considerate. Most people think only of themselves on their birthday.

It's so much nicer to give someone a gift just because you love them, not because you feel obligated because of a number on a calendar. What's so great about getting older anyway?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

You sound very considerate. Most people think only of themselves on their birthday.

It's so much nicer to give someone a gift just because you love them, not because you feel obligated because of a number on a calendar. What's so great about getting older anyway?

I think some people take it way too far, even carrying the "but it's my birthday" "I can't believe you forgot my birthday" attitude into adulthood. They need to stop.

 

[JayJayDee]

I think some people take it way too far, even carrying the "but it's my birthday" "I can't believe you forgot my birthday" attitude into adulthood. They need to stop.

Like petulant, selfish children...expected in a 5 year old, but surely not in a 35 year old.

Funny how people are such slaves to their traditions. When I tell people that I don't celebrate Christmas, they look at me enviously but it doesn't occur to them that they could release themselves from this commercial nightmare and spread the love over the other 364 days of the year.