God Created Man Through Evolution

by maputo95 20 Replies latest social current

• 

  maputo95

  I tend to believe that the Book of Genesis is allegorical and not historic. The first part including the Flood is a creation story similar to many others, although the Jewish one has distinct insights into man's relationship with God. Another literary device employed is anthropomorphism or personification as in the talking snake,aka Satan. Bottom line is that I, personally believe God, as I understand him, created man through evolution, a belief, I think Teilhard held. I don't think belief in Evolution negates any of my christological beliefs or my belief in spirit, including humans as souls inhabiting bodies. Problem is that my good friend thinks I am blasphemous for currently holding these views. He is also livid when I point out absurdities and errors in the Bible as well as disgusting morality in the Old Testament. My friend who is very intelligent and has been away from the WT for 40 years has refound "Jehovah ", sic and is trying to convert me. We have had 2000 emails between us disagreeing about many theological and historic points and he has NEVER once come up with a personal argument but repeats the same, old tired propaganda tricks of the WT. WHEN I POINT OUT A BLATANT CONTRADICTION IN SCRIPTURES OR ASK FOR BIBLICAL PROOF OF HIS WT ASSERTIONS, HE ALWAYS SAYS THAT HE'LL GET BACK TO ME ON THAT BUT HE NEVER DOES.

  ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO EXPLAIN TO HIM THAT HIS TOLERANCE ON MY VIEWS WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO HIM ASSUMING THE DEFENDER OF JEHOVAH (SIC) AND ARGUING ABSURD POSITIONS HIMSELF.

  It is not pleasant to see an interesting and formerly free individual reenter the WT, a bit like going back to Hell to collect a pack of cigarettes you left there.
• 

  bohm

  Well, since you know what he is going to respond, you can antisipate it and phrase your mails accordingly? Perhaps have him agree to another type of discussion, some common rules you would like both of you to agree to? (one topic per discussion, etc).

  Another tactic could be to let HIM explain what HE believe is the main lines of evolution, sort of swap seats. It will be hard for him because he is not used to having to think :-)
• 

  journey-on

  My friend who is very intelligent and has been away from the WT for 40 years has refound "Jehovah ", sic and is trying to convert me.

  Some people that left the witnesses years ago but never freed themselves from the indoctrination live with guilt for years. Then, one day, out of fear of what is happening in the world, they return to the vomit.

  It sounds like he respects your intelligence and viewpoint. He probably reasons that if you become convinced it is truth, he will feel better and validated. Stick to your guns. Be patient and rational. Point out discrepancies, and present logical arguments calmly and reasonably.

  Good luck! 2,000 emails exchanged is a tight friendship. He needs your validation. Help him see.
• 

  mindmelda

  He's freaking out because OMG, it's the end! Periodically, thinks get sucky and the Dubs all rejoice, thinking it's finally time for Armadillo, but then it passes and nothing happens except that they make more excuses why that wasn't the right time for Armadillo.

  But a few who have left or faded or whatever get that same urge to return to the land of the brain dead until they realize that hey, it's not Armadillo and whoops, now I remember why I left this crazyness.
• 

  maputo95

  Thanks to you all for these helpful and clesrly written suggestions which I'll act on.The one JW sleight of logic that I cannot comprehend is that eating blood and transfusing blood are the same and are both the intaking of blood. Eaten blood goes through your stomuch and becomes food which is not the same as transfusing blood which enters a vein and is NOT eaten but augments the blood in the system as an organ. How are these processes the same? THe thinking A=B=C is that of a survival mechanicism in the subconscious, ie smoke = fire- type of thing.
• 

  bohm

  Maputo: On blood, i have had success in asking question along: "The bible says we must 'abstain from blood' and i know how the scholars in the WTS has interpreted those words to create a functional law and i am trying to understand the logic they used. As i see it, to turn that into a functional law like the WTS has done, we must have some very clear definitions af those two key words, abstain and blood. So try to define when a substance is 'blood' and what it means to 'abstain from' something in the biblical sence".

  The key is that it is impossible to get definitions of those terms that does not involve the actual rules and regulations - for example, what part of his definition of 'blood' and 'abstain' make it clear it is okay to mix 10'000 packets of blood to extract albumin and inject that?

  When you have done that, take a historical study. The exact same verses they use for blood today has been used on vaccines and organ transplants. Why did the definitions change? What were the definitions back then?

  I think your goal should be to admit that the FDS definitions are somewhat arbitrary and people abstain from blood NOT because it is perfectly clear from the bible what treatments are allowed and not, but as a matter of respect for 'Gods organization'.

  That being said, i would try to nail him on interlectual honesty, for example the creative quoting and misrepresentations in the 'Creation' book. Google it to see what i mean, a good place to begin is to notice what 'Evolutionist' they keep on quoting, cough cough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Francis_Hitching
• 

  avatar

  SO let's assume that God did use evolution to "create" man.

  Then we need to ask:

  So was there truly such a notion as Adamic Sin? If not then there was no need for the Ransom Sacrifice. Oops - big problems there. If Adamic Sin is true then how did evolution result in perfection? The singularity of the assumption flies in the face of evolutionary process.

  Bottom line: Jehovah's Witnesses can never accept evolution. It presents far too many issues when you consider the impact and inconsistencies with the rest of the JW doctrines.
• 

  maputo95

  Avatar, interesting notions which you intoduce and if one considered the Bible largely symbolic many interpretations can be made of certain scenes and narratives. This symbolic exegesis can give rise to more mystical interpretations of Scripure in a Jungian or Kierkegaardinian sense.
• 

  avatar

  Maputo, I'm not sure I understand your post. Let's keep it simple.

  Animal sacrifices in the Bible - symbolic or literal?

  Jesus as a Ransom sacrifice - Symbolic or literal?

  How would you allow the concept of sacrifices as presented in the Bible to coexist with the proposal that God created man through evolution?

  BTW sorry if this offends you: using words like "exegesis" and quoting Jung or Kierkegaard don't impress me. When one has to resort to making ideas complex then the ideas are normally not thought out or valid. The Bible (which I think is pure shit because it is so flawed (find a million fancy words for "shit")) is supposedly written for the benefit of the common man in order to build faith in God.
• 

  maputo95

  Sorry Avatar "Animal sacrifices" are literal in the Bible, I feel. I have an enquiring mind and am fascinated in how Jung and Kierkegaard considered Christianity. I thought starting the trend may be enlightening for me. I respect your view that the bible is 'shit' as it is so full of contradictions. The bottom line is that you don't have to believe in the Bible at all, to believe in evotion and the existence of the soul or the 'spirit world' as I don't believe these are mutually exclusive. The Higher or God is not a concept comprehensible to me. Do you find Jungor Kierkegaard interesting ( as I do)