JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

TheStumbler

I've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder Dad and I need some advice. I thought I was getting through to him but I think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that I am attacking him personally. I think he has dismissed everything I said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.

It started with a telephone conversation where 'creationism' came up. The JW told me that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in creationism which is obviously untrue. I disagreed and explained that Jehovah's Witnesses were creationit's because they believe in creation. Next day I got an email link to JW.org. Here's my email reply:

Definitely creationist - you admit yourself that you believe in creation.

I looked up 'Creationism' under The FAQ section on JW.org and it claims that;

'Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in creationism' But on the very same page it contradicts itself by claiming;'Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation'

It makes absolutely no sense to say that you believe in creation but not creationism because creationism is belief in creation.

Most dictionaries define creationism as a general belief in creation not specific to a particular interpretation of Genesis or even the Bible. Under this general term of creationism there are many different forms of creationism such as; Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Day Age Creationism, Gap Theory, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution etc.

Wikipedia supports this understanding of creationism as a general term;

'creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation'.

Under different 'types of creationism' Wikipedia describes 'Day-age creationism' as:

'The belief that 'the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time).

Creationists generally agree with this definition of creationism. The creationist website Conservapedia defines creationism as:

'the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants were created by God or some other supreme being...Within creationism...there are various ideas...one form of creationism holds that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and is referred to as Young Earth Creationism. The other form of creationism is called Old Earth Creationism and holds that the earth and universe are billions of years old'.

TalkOrigins, a prominent website about evolution and creationism lends further support to this definition of creationism as a general term:

'creationism refers to a wide range of beliefs... Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible'.

So the Watchtower promotes a form of creationism known as 'Old Earth Creationism' or 'Day-age Creationism'.

The Watchtower denies its own creationism by restricting the meaning of creationism to only refer to 'Young Earth Creationism' but this is its own definition of creationism not used by anyone else.

This is disingenuous because the Watchtower does not inform its readers that when it claims that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in creationism it is using a special definition of creationism not widely recognised.

under the same FAQ the Watchtower even notes that:

'some creationists assert that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days' and 'some creationists teach that the earth is just a few thousand years old'.

If only 'some' creationists believe these things then some creationists do not which means the fact that the Watchtower believes the Earth is very old does not preclude it from from being creationist. It must know this

The Watchtower is simply redefining words to suit its own argument.

I suppose if one is at liberty to redefine words as they see fit then I could claim that I am a vegetable but I don't expect this would convince anyone. The Watchtower fails to convince for the same reasons.

If you believe in the brand of creationism promoted by the Watchtower you are by definition a creationist or at least a type of creationist.
TheStumbler

His reply was basically 'you are entitled to your opinion but I disagree'. He then essentially assrted that his understanding was different and equally valid because words can mean different things to different people. He made not real attempt to engage with what I wrote in any specific way. here'a my reply:

I agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own facts.

You can't just reduce a verifiable fact (such as the generally accepted definition of a word) to a matter of personal opinion. It's irrelevant what your (or my) opinion is regarding the meaning of creationism – It is what it is. It could be my opinion that creationism is another word for chicken but that would not make it true. What counts is what you can demonstrate as true.

Creationism is a belief in creation. This is not my opinion; this is how it is described by most dictionaries, encyclopaedias and authoritative websites:

Creationism: Theory attributing all matter, biological species to separate acts of creation by god rather than to evolution (Australian Oxford Dictionary)

Creationism: 'creationism' is a very broad term. In the most general sense, it refers to views that reject scientific explanations of certain features of the natural world and instead posit direct intervention (sometimes called "special creation")....Some creationists believe that the universe and Earth are only several thousand years old, a position referred to as "young Earth" creationism. (American Academy of Sciences)

Creationism: The position that God created the universe. There are two views within creationism; Young earth creationists generally believe that God created the universe, the earth, and living things on the earth and that the Old Testament literally describes six, 24-hour periods. Old earth creationists still maintain that the universe, the earth, and all living things were created by God, but that the Universe is very old. (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

Creationism: belief system which postulates that the universe, Earth, and life were deliberately created by God. There are two main schools of study known as religious creationism and scientific creationism, and a spectrum of beliefs on issues such as the age of the Earth(creationwiki.org)

creationism: doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis (Merrian Webster online dictionary)

Creationism: the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation'... Day-age creationism (is) the belief that 'the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (Wikipedia)

Creationism: The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution (Oxford English Dictionary)

Creationism: literal belief in the account of creation given in the book of Genesis (Webster online dictionary).

Creationist: someone who believes in a God who is absolute creator of heaven and Earth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Creationism: refers to a wide range of beliefs... Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible (TalkOrigins.org)

Creationism: belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants were created by God or some other supreme being...Within creationism...there are various ideas...one form of creationism holds that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and is referred to as Young Earth Creationism. The other form of creationism is called Old Earth Creationism and holds that the earth and universe are billions of years old' (Conservapedia.org)

Creationism: (belief in creation) based on the revelation from God as found in the first part of the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible Old Testament (or the Jewish "Torah"). The creation is described as taking place over a six-day period, after which God rested (and therefore no more creating has taken place since). Strict creationists believe that these were 24-hour earth days and that the earth is quite young,while others calling themselves creationists take these to be "long periods of time" (millions of years) and typically believe the earth to be very old (around 4.6 billion years as is commonly taught). (Bestbiblescience.org)

Creationism: the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed (dictionary.com)

Creationism: refers to the religious belief in a supernatural deity or force that intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the physical world. Within that broad scope, there are many varieties of creationist belief.(National centre for science education)

Creationist: person who believes the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible (Cambridge dictionary)

Creationism: belief that the universe was created exactly as the Bible describes it (Macmillan dictionary)

Creationism: the belief that the universe and everything in it were specially created by God rather than natural means....Creationism is often used as a synonym for the specific ideology of 'Young Earth Creationism'....creationists can be of virtually any religious stripe, from fundamentalist Christians to Pastafarians (rational wiki.org)

There are 18 definitions and descriptions of creationism referenced above. Six acknowledge that there are a broad range of creationist beliefs and five specifically mention ‘Old-Earth Creationism’. Not one defines creationism exclusively as ‘Young-Earth Creationism’. I believe this sample is representative of the overall body of literature on the subject. I am very confident about this.

It’s also worth noting that The American National Academy of Science and the National Centre for Science Education are recognised authorities on this subject as both organisations have been actively involved in court cases against creationists and advocate against creationism being taught in schools. Talk Origins and Creationwiki are also the two most well known websites on the internet (not including Wikipedia) covering the subject of creationism. I also included definition of creationism in both the Australian Oxford Dictionary and the English Oxford dictionary definitions – I hope you agree that the Oxford English Dictionary is an authority on the generally accepted meaning of common words.

'Other' people might agree with your idiosyncratic understanding of creationism (and I’m sure if looked hard enough you could find a dictionary or encyclopaedia entry that supported you) but there does not have to be universal agreement for the meaning of a word to become generally accepted.

You are entitled to disagree with the generally accepted definition of creationism, of course, and I suppose you can call yourself what you like. But this does not the change the fact thatyou are a creationist as the word is widely defined and commonly understood. Telling people that you are not a creationist is therefore misleading. You should, at the very least, be specific and tell people that you are an ‘Old-Earth Creationist’ and not a 'Young Earth Creationist'.

Just so you know, I am not accusing you of intentionally misleading people. I believe you genuinely thought you were not a creationist.

One last point. You didn't address the fact that JW.org FAQ implies that there are a range of creationist beliefs:

'some creationists believe that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days' (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/)

If only 'some' creationists believe this then ‘some’ creationists do not which means creationism is not restricted to 'Young-Earth Creationism'. How do you explain this?

If creationism refers only to 'Young Earth creationism' then why does the term 'Young Earth Creationism' even exist?
TheStumbler

His response was 'just because a word has a generally accepted meaning it doesnt mean its right'. This is where it went down hill. I replied:

How can the generally accepted meaning of a word be wrong? You are really clutching at semantic straws now.

words don't have objectively correct meanings. The meaning of a word is arbitrary and determined by its popular usage. sometimes the generally accepted meaning of a word changes over time and that word acquires a new meaning. One is not more or less correct than the other.

Creationism is currently generally accepted as meaning a belief in creation. Therefore creationism, as it is currently defined, is a belief in a creation.

This means that you are a creationist. Using semantics to claim you are not a creationist is intellectually disingenuous.

This is really like talking to someone insists 2 + 2 equals 5 and that 5 really means 4 and everyone else's understanding of 5 is wrong.

Regarding your claim that a true (Christian) couldn't be a creationist because it doesn't fit the theme of the Bible, this is a very vague claim. If creationism only means a belief in creationism (which it does) then creationism is entirely consistent with the Bible.

I think you are alluding to the fact that some creationists are politically active which is at odds with your understandibg of the Bible. But your conclusion is wrong because it is based on an incorrect definition of creationism. creationism is not defined by political activism. This is your own criteria that you have applied to creationism to exclude your own creationist beliefs from being considered creationism.

Creationism is a belief in creation. How exactly is belief in creation contrary to the the theme of the Bible?

Lastly, You have still have not addressed the fact that JW.orgimplies that creationism is a broad term:

'some creationists believe that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days' (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/)

If only 'some' creationists believe this then ‘some’ creationists do not which means creationism is not restricted to 'Young-Earth Creationism'. How do you explain this?
TheStumbler

So, where did I go wrong? Was I rude? I was certainly blunt but I didn't mean to be rude.

he told me that he will no longer talk to me about the topic and asked me to read the conversation between Jesus and Pontius Pilot to learn about the principles he holds which means he can no longer talk to me - what does this mean?

What at should I do differently next time?

I think my point about jws being creationists was unasaillable so I thought I was finally getting through. I thought finally I found an example of the Watcgtowers dishonesty that is undeniable. But he would not accept any fault on the part of the Watchtower. It's like the Watchtower could claim black is white and he'd swollow it.
Listener

The Stumbler, I can understand why this is so frustrating and it leads me to believe that the WTBTS does this sort of thing intentionally. That is, they redefine common day words into meanings that don't exist and are not recognized by common use language. There are a number of words that they do this with. It is worthwhile considering why they do this.

Firstly, when they change their viewpoint on a matter they will try to defend themselves (where they can) by saying they always have had this view. Changing the meaning of a word helps them to do this so that they can say they never actually said (or meant) something that they obviously did in the past.

Secondly and probably more importantly, it allows them an easy escape route. This gives them an out for discussing the real issue at hand and sidetracks the conversation away from the very important message you are trying to get accross.

In your situation, does it really matter if he or the WTBTS do not want to acknowledge that what they believe is creationilsm? There is no point in getting tied down with one word. Just move on and get to the issues that you really want to discuss and sidetrack the use of the word 'creationilsm' because it is causing a stumbling block.

That is why I love this forum and the discussions here as they help to show the many tricks that the WTBTS has taught their followers and they have no idea.

It causes a circular thinking within the JW and they can never get down to the real issues with any logical understanding. It is no wonder that so many of them are stressed out or depressed. The WTBTS tries to rewire their brains and it causes confussion which they can't get to the bottom of, it is so much easier to accept as black and white anything that the WTBTS teaches them and this is why they will accept why 2 + 2 = 5.
Captain Obvious

Woooah.... Cool it bud. You may have overdone it. Look from his POV. Someone whom he taught to "love Jehovah" is now talking crazy shit. You want to keep the lines of communication open, hoping he will see the truth. After no time at all, he sends you emails that are thousands of words long, basically repeating themselves. Whether you agree or not, clearly his brain is infected with demonic apostate teachings and he must be cut off.

I know it's harsh to say, but that may well have been what's happened here. An active JW ONLY wants to keep the lines of communication open just enough to help and "encourage" the person. If that person tries to infect you with their apostate diseased demonic teachings, you must protect yourself and cut him off. It's the only way the WT can retain such control over its members.
TheStumbler

the reason I focused on it so much was becaude it is so important. He'd never accept any contrary evidence about 607 or the cross but I thought maybe I could get through to him about such a trivial issue. I thought he'd have less invested in the Watchtower being right about something so trivial.

do you think I got through to him at all? I think he knew ge couldn't defend the Watchtower so he exaggerated my rudeness as it gave hik an 'out'. How did you guys react as JWa when you couldn't defend a Watchtower doctrine from criticism? Did it ever get through?

Also so the bit he really got hung up on was my claim that was 'clutching at semantic straws'. i didnt think it was that rude...
TheStumbler

Sorry, imeant the reason I focused on it because it was 'unimportant'.

thanks Captain obvious, you might be right. Maybe even....stating the obvious? :)
Captain Obvious

No, he was clutching at semantic straws. Your pointing it out showed your upper hand.

All you can hope for is that you planted a seed. It is just a trivial thing for sure, but every JW is quite invested I the JWs being right about EVERYTHING. To be wrong without the FDS saying so would show a lack of holy guidance.

You may have pissed him off, and you definitely attacked his cult personality which is a huge no-no. Don't expect to get anywhere with this approach. If you were about to speak like this without him screaming and runnign away, you may be able to plant more seeds without activating his cult persona.
TheStumbler

Yeah, I know it's not a successful tactic but thought it might work about something so non-contraversial. I mean how can he disagree with the definition of a word. And yeah I know i need to work on my word count to communicate my ideas better. I no sometimes meaning can lost in so many words but I can't help myself - theres always some other point or argunenr that I think is too good to leave out. Sometimes more is better.

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

Share this