Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    Prove what SBF has suggested is wrong - Earnest

    Which suggestion of SBF are you referring to?

    The fantasy where he suggests that a god of love can randomly kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children and destroy the lives of millions more, and then reverse time and space to make it all better...


    the one where he callously dismisses human suffering as victims just taking themselves too seriously?

  • cofty

    SBF - you are a liar and a callous troll.

  • slimboyfat

    I am interested in questions about God and reality and sharing and discussing ideas. It's not much of a discussion if we can't probe the boundaries of what is possible. The idea that the human mind may not be able to understand the answer, or the idea that God has a different perspective on suffering (that it doesn't matter as much to him) may be difficult, but they are ideas worth exploring, if we are genuinely interested.

    All you seem to want to do it shut down anyone who doesn't toe the line by calling names and ascribing bad motives. A poor way to genuinely explore any topic.

  • Earnest

    cofty : Which suggestion of SBF are you referring to?

    I am asking you to verify or falsify your argument from the law of non-contradiction. SBF has suggested that because God is outside of space and time we cannot conceive the way he looks at things because we are bound by space and time.

    Can you prove that is false instead of resorting to insults and ridicule. Just this one time.

  • cofty

    I have not the slightest doubt about your motives SBF

    God's perspective about human suffering is not relevant.

    It is humans that suffer by god's wilful actions in time and space. This is in direct contradiction to god's self-description.

    This is the key point that both you and Earnest refuse to acknowledge.

  • Earnest

    So instead of proving it false you say God's perspective is not relevant. Is that a fact or an opinion?

  • slimboyfat
    God's perspective about human suffering is not relevant.

    Well that's God telt.

    But what if God says your perspective is not relevant?

  • cofty

    It's ironic that this thread started with an interesting point about dishonest selective quotations.

  • humbled
    I just solved the problem of evilslimboyfat

    what a sharp skirmish has gone on and l arrive late with only some odd observations and barnyard reflections.

    But there is something so profoundly troubling about your solution , SBF, that —well —l will risk embarrassment by confessing l have myself tried solving the problem of evil in the barnyard and will see if you agree with my disappointment.

    I believe we both share the view that victims, whether man or beast, if they must live with and relive the trauma of their terror and pain and death—then evil lives too. But —if God can stop the memory of the memory of the evil in the victims—that solves the problem of evil?

    I experimented by sparing ____ (fill in the blank)the terror and pain of death by careful planning and deceitful behavior. There were ways and means by which this can happen. The expression “he didn’t know what hit him.” serves here. My victims (when it went well) had no trauma, no memory of their collapse, expirations, the gore and dismemberment. They had no knowledge of evil.

    The problem was that the memory of the plotting, the power, the termination the violation of life did continue to live. Just because the victim didn’t know what happened didn’t mean l could forget what l had done.It lived in my brain afterward.

    The taking of life is violation,is evil whether or not the animal felt it. Maybe if l had been purer l would not have been bothered by carrying death in my head. But a god that hold that secret evil in his holy brain? This didn’t solve the problem of evil for me.

  • jukief

    Diogenesister said:

    << This is rarther frightening and the more cynical types will see it as evidence that Watchtower leaders know exactly what they are doing. >>

    I have no doubt that many of them do know exactly how they're deceiving their followers. But many are largely taken in by their own lies. It's a great example of Orwellian society.

    Earnest said:

    << For those who believe in direct creation of each type of animal according to its kind, it is very difficult to argue that a god of love created animals of predation with the means and nature of causing pain and suffering to others. The same goes for parasites of various kinds. >>

    Exactly. Alan told me about a recent Scientific American article on the bite force of crocodilians. If you take a Design point of view, it's obvious that these animals -- predators all -- were DESIGNED to be effective predators. The biggest of today's crocodiles can bite with a force equivalent to some 1500 kilograms. The author extrapolated back to the biggest fossil form, some 15 meters long, with about 10,000 kilograms of bite force. Their other characteristics are finely tuned to sneak up on animals at the water's edge and grab them. Is this *really* the product of a Loving Supreme Designer? I think not. If it's Design, it's a Deistic Designer. If not, it's evolution by natural selection producing the illusion of design.

    << To argue that a god of love is responsible for the pain and suffering from natural causes is less clear. If you believe in the OT view that God causes drought as punishment, he brings the rain, he causes the sun to stay in the sky ... he has a direct hand in natural events then the argument is good. Not everyone who believes in a god of love holds to that view. >>

    That view is from religion's infancy, and is rooted in the strong tendency of children to give agency to inanimate objects. A child might think that the waving of trees makes the wind blow. A JW might think that God worked events such that a bolt of cloth in a fabric store was left with exactly the right amount of cloth to provide curtains for a Kingdom Hall. It's not far removed from animism.

    Most Christians, and the JWs especially, believe that the universe is basically a nice, warm, fuzzy home for humans. But it is far from it. The universe is really an extremely violent place, full of massive explosions that outshine our entire galaxy. Many authors have pointed out how many ways our earth might be wiped out by the impersonal forces loose in the universe. The only way such events could be deflected from the earth is by a hugely powerful god-like entity that had humans' welfare in mind. But if such an entity exists, then judging by his lack of interest in human affairs today, one would not expect him to intervene in a bigger disaster.

    Here are a couple of videos I stumbled upon that deal with what we're talking about:

    It sounds like your own belief, Earnest, is more or less deistic, but not in the classic sense. The semi-famous author of high-school books on evolution, Kenneth Miller, is a practicing Catholic but pretty much a Deist. His God takes no part in any of the universe's affairs, having set things in motion a very long time ago. That view avoids the obvious contradictions with reality of believing in a Loving God, but is anathema to the majority of Christians, who believe in a God who is very active in the universe's affairs.

    Rogerson's book is one of the best ever written on the JWs. Another is "A People For His Name: A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and An Evaluation" (Timothy White, 1967), now available only in facsimile. I just love Rogerson's dry, understated British humor.

    TD mentioned a few examples of the sort of popular misconceptions and outright nonsense once taught, or still taught, by the JWs. Many of those things are nothing more than the misconceptions popular in Fred Franz's youth. Franz was obviously the driving force behind many of them, and he was extremely good at finding sources equivalent to The Weekly World News and other tabloid material to support his crazy ideas.

    I particularly remember the nonsense back around 1971 where the Society portrayed the physical heart as the seat of emotions, the brain as the seat of intellect, and that these two actually carried on conversations that determined a person's conduct. They actually put on a District Convention skit where there was a giant green brain on one side of the stage, and a giant red heart on the other side. They "conversed" and lit up when "speaking". That made me embarrassed to be a JW.

Share this