The scientific hypocrisy of Jehovah's Witnesses

by jwfacts 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • jwfacts

    I have been involved in an email exchange with a JW regarding my article on Noah's Flood, and whether it was global. It got me really worked up, as I find the Watchtower mentality totally hypocritical. Here is part of the conversation.

    ME - The flood is proven to not have been global. People with faith can find other Scriptural possibilities, such as the use of other terms from Strongs, or taking Noah's story as figurative.

    HIM - Our conversation proved to be futile since you couldn’t prove me scripturally that I and JW’s are wrong on the matter of a global flood. You rather decide to follow modernizers “Christians” who try to explain the Flood of Noah’s days based on their faulty “scientific” theories invented by imperfect men.

    ME - Scientific medical theories have increased average life spans where I live from 40 years in 1900 to 80 years now. It provides your transportation, it allows you to email me. You are ... taking advantage of science when it suits you, and then denying it as faulty when in contradicts what you wish to believe. It is a common theme with JWs. The Watchtower uses science to arrive at 539BC as the date for the destruction of Babylon, then claim science is faulty an use a weak interpretation to work back to 607 BCE. You claim use of blood is wrong, that it must be poured out, that you cannot donate blood yet free use scientifically derived blood fractions to save lives.

    The other aspect of the conversation was regarding taking parts of the Bible as figurative.

    HIM - These words of yours illustrate how feeble the foundation of your faith is: "People with faith can find other Scriptural possibilities, such as the use of other terms from Strongs, or taking Noah's story as figurative." After reading them, I conclude that only biblically naïve people believe and can say these shameful abhorrent words.
    ME - As far as taking the flood as figurative, you do it all the time. You take the 7 creative days as figurative days. You take the 2520 days as being figurative for years. Since Tyre was destroyed for 50 years, but the prophecy says 70, you take it as a figurative time frame.
  • cedars

    I'm quickly learning to just ignore emails from people who show themselves to be ignorant in their first few words. It's hard enough keeping up with the emails from genuine thinkers and friends at times.

    Of course, if they are searching, I would by all means give it a go and try to help them - but you are fighting a losing battle replying to emails from those who aren't yet able to think objectively. Your time is precious. Save it for those who are searching, and for writing your excellent articles.

    Just my two cents!!


  • bats in the belfry
  • jgnat

    What strikes me is the abundant use of derogatory adjectives.

    ...futile...modernizers...faulty “scientific” theories invented by imperfect men...

    ...feeble...biblically naïve people...shameful abhorrent words...

    I don't see much attempt beyond arrogance to demonstrate that his position is any more valid. I blame the Watchtower writing style, which demonstrates form over substance.

  • Finkelstein

    Unfortunately the real resolving truth to the Flood debate never comes forward in revealing the actual fact that this story was

    told by certain ancient scribes, to create power and relevance toward their particular god of worship namely YHWH.

    These same ancient scribes told many stories of their god, to accomplish the same intent of the the Great Flood story,

    such as Jonah being swallowed by a large fish for a few days and then simply walking out of it unscathed.

    There are many to be realized once reading the collective writings in the bible.

  • GoodGuyGreg

    It's easy (and fun) to get worked up, but as others wrote, it also easily escalates into a flame war. It would be interesting to write something like an anti-Reasoning book, with suggestions on how to handle rhetorical fallacies and common fundamentalist claims with a few short sentences and (where applicable) quotes.

  • MrFreeze

    They take whatever science helps them and disregard the rest. It is very hypocritical.

  • jgnat

    Yeah, MrFreeze. I've toyed with the idea of challenging my daughter's faith in the creation story, which led me to dendochronology, which led me to the sites that challenge it's results, which leads me to evaluating evidence, which leads me to a completely different way of looking at the world. My daughter considers all those nay-sayers as being influenced by... you know, the Evil One. Which makes me wonder what she thinks of ME.

    To even get started they need an introductory course in evaluating evidence.

  • jwfacts

    Agreed, it is a waste of tim arguing with those that won't change, when it can be used helping those that will change.

  • Finkelstein

    There are many known sciences that exist today that could easily disprove the flood story as a viable possibility.

    Unfortunately for religionists the one thing they miss and wont regrettably acknowledge is the known human ignorance

    of humanity at the time when these stories were told.

    Something that isn't truthful acknowledged or accepted as being a fact.

Share this