The "Tree of Life and its meaning"

by EdenOne 169 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EdenOne

  Marvin,

  Just because I am still a Jehovah's Witness doesn't mean I endorse everything the WTS does or pursuits. Pretty much like when you're a citizen of a certain country doesn't mean you endorse everything your country's government does. Or does it? To say "I agree with many teachings conveyed by the WTS" doesn't make me a WTS apologist to the point that you have to try to persuade me that the WTS is in error and has been dishonest about themselves, or to project into my persona the wrongdoings that you credit to the WTS.

  Now, about your first question, in your earlier post, I'm not sure I understood. Can you clarify it for me?

  (I'm sorry but I've still not grasped how to quote from another post)

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  EdenOne - you are arguing a straw-man rather than discussing what I have actually said. For example...

  Do you think that in 100 years time we might decide that the earth is flat after all? Of course not. To the very same degree of certainty we can say that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years. There is lots to be discovered about the details but that basic fact is solid.

  Since you have never read a book on evolution how can you have an opinion? If you had studied it you would understand why the fact that humans evolved form non-human species over millions of years is an unassailable fact.

  In true honesty, you cannot be an atheist without an element of faith. In true honesty you cannot prove that something doesn't exist.

  Nonsense. I have never said I or anybody else can prove there is no god. That would be a stupid thing to assert. I have no faith - faith is the enemy of truth, I follow the evidence.

  I am not even arguing against god here. As I said twice already millions of christians accept the fact of evolution and reconcile it to their faith.

  science accommodates the notion of other possible realities and paralell dimentions that we don't perceive.

  I don't know what you mean and I'm fairly sure you don't either. If you are alluding to theoretical physics then it is of no relevance to evolution. Whatever we discover about the universe will not change what we know abut this dimension one iota.

  There was no Adam and Eve, no fall, no flood. These are facts that will never change. They do not require your consent but you should have the intellectual honesty to examine the evidence.
• 

  james_woods

  Just because I am still a Jehovah's Witness doesn't mean I endorse everything the WTS does or pursuits.

  If you are really still a Jehovah's Witness, then you should explain this to THEM rather than to us.

  Perhaps you should also give your elders the link to your website on theology -

  Let us know what the results are.
• 

  cofty

  You added this after I began to post my reply...

  Another thing: Why does an article about a subject of faith needs to be filtered by science to get a certificate of asepticism? Is this the thought police?

  How can you compare an evidence-based challenge to "thought police"?

  If your faith is worth a damn it has to be consistent with reality. The days when religious people can wallow in evidence-free assertions and expect special protection from facts are gone.

  Science is nothing more than a method of investigating reality. You can't contradict reality and expect to be taken seriously.

  This is a discussion forum where every assertion is likely to be challenged. You can either learn from the challenges and grow, or ignore them and go on making the same mistakes again and again.

  There was no Adam & Eve. You now need to examine the evidence and work out if and how it affects your theology.
• 

  AGuest

  Just because I am still a Jehovah's Witness doesn't mean I endorse everything the WTS does or pursuits.

  But are we not told, dear EdenOne (peace to you!) that, "A little leaven ferments the WHOLE lump"? And that "leaven" is hypocrisy? And so, if there's even a little hypocrisy the whole THING is frought with hypocrisy? And if frought with hypocrisy, then is not the WHOLE thing unclean? And are we not told to "QUIT touching the UNCLEAN thing", and THEN we will be "taken in as sons and daughters" of God? Because if one touches something unclean... how can one themselves BE clean? Will not the one touching the unclean thing BECOME unclean himself/herself... by means of touching it?

  I only know of One, dear one, who, in touching something unclean, could make the thing clean. Is it not by touching THAT One, then, and not something UNCLEAN... that one can become clean... and thus a "virgin"... AGAIN? Rather than touching the very thing that that One condemned as UNCLEAN?

  "Woe to you... (corrupt priests... false "christs/anointed"... self-appointed religious leaders/teachers of the Law... and writers/copyists of the Law)... HYPOCRITES!"

  I hope you have ears to hear and get the sense of what I am sharing with you here. I also await your comments, if you have any, to my response as to the Tree of Life... and who that is.

  Again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant, as I am servant to ALL those of the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with, and a doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  cofty

  And that "leaven" is hypocrisy?

  The irony!
• 

  james_woods

  Indeed, Cofty. Indeed.
• 

  sabastious

  faith is the enemy of truth

  Faith is the trusted companion of truth. If your spouse says, "I will not cheat on you" on what basis do you have to believe them? What if you know that they have sexual problems from growing up in a repressive cult? What if you know that given the perfect circumstance, they WILL have to deal with temptation? How can you conclusively say that under all circumstances infidelity is never a possibility?

  You are confusing blind faith, or faithless faith, with the real deal. Your statement operates on a logical false equivalency. You are equating a hollow exoskeleton with a living, breathing creature. It's a common mistake you make and it doesn't appear that you have the ability to grasp the concept given the amount of times you assert this misconception upon others.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  No Sab you are playing silly semantic word games again.

  The faith that is required to fill the gap where there is insufficient evidence is not the same as faith that is a synonym for trust.

  The first kind is mind-rot, the second kind is a virtue.
• 

  EdenOne

  cofty,

  Then, for clarity of discussion, you're not an atheist, you're an agnostic. You don't know if God exists or not, but in the absence of empirical evidence, you choose to not have faith and refuse that notion to impact your life. Is this you? Then we're clear and can move on.

  While I didn't study Biology, I've studied Anthropology. Therefore, you're making a wrong assumption that I haven't read a book apologetic of human evolution. I'm looking at a bookshelf with a few of them, actually. I haven't read those you've suggested but I promise you I'll get one of them and read it.

  This may surprise you, but I actually accept that there was evolution, as much as there were creation. Perhaps the difference between you and me is that I believe in a guided, controlled evolution, while you will probably say that there aren't any lab tests that demonstrate that is possible. But an ancient real world example, the doog breed improvement, shows that is possible to proactively manipulate genetics to guide the development of a species. Sure, there are environmental adaptations and genetic accidents happening all the time. But why can't you at least give room to the possibility that evolution could have been used as a tool by a supernatural powerful being?

  That being said, I believe that the Bible depicts Adam and Eve as the first human beings created "in the image of God"; To my understanding, that doesn't rule out the pre-existence of hominids, or other human species. The way I see it, the difference is that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens created directly by God with a special purpose that set them apart from whatever might exist on Earth at that time, (assuming that there hasn't been a mass extinction before Adam and Eve - hence my interest in the "Gap Theory") and made them subjects of interest for the bible theology.

  Eden