Posts by Disillusioned JW

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

While abiogenesis is not the same as biological evolution it is what scientists (especially ones which have a big history picture of the universe) call chemical evolution (or which is considered a part of what is called chemical evolution). Likewise there is what is called cosmological evolution. One astrophysicist, Eric Chaisson, has a book from 1981 called Cosmic Dawn: The Origins of Matter and Life and his revision (and enlargement) of it is called the Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos. I wish I had read the first book before making the decision to get baptized since it probably would have made a difference in my life. I am very impressed by the latter book. The books are about the evolution (in the the broad sense of gradual change and even transmutation, such as transmutation of one atomic element into a another by nuclear fusion) of the universe. It includes cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. His book also talks about cultural evolution.

Eric Chaisson also has a book, from 2001, called Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature. A brief description of the book from Wikipedia is the following. "It examines cosmic evolution which includes the history of natural evolution from the Big Bang to the present from the perspective of the emerging multi-scientific discipline of Big History.[2] It offers an explanation of why simple structures billions of years ago gave way to more complex structures, such as stars, planets, life, and human beings in complex civilizations.[2] It is written for a general audience interested in science." [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Evolution_(book) .]

17

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

by Diogenesister in

can anyone remember the reasoning the watchtower gave for jesus speaking these words?

if you have a reference that would be even better!.

Disillusioned JW

Why do many evangelical apologists care about whether the physical body of Jesus was resurrected anyway, since they and other Christians believe they have an immortal soul which will go to heaven upon the death of their physical body and that it could be hundreds of years (or even countless thousands of years) before their physical body gets reunited with their spirit being?

The vast majority of Christians seem to give no thought to the idea of a future resurrection of their human body, since they imagine themselves as going to heaven as a spirit (without a fleshy body, though somehow looking like such a body in some way) and being in bliss in that state. It seems to me that Christians (and their denominations/sects) who believe/teach they will ascend to heaven as a spirit (and be in bliss as a spirit being in the company of the Lord Christ and the Lord God the Father [who is thought of as a spirit being without any fleshly or physical body]) should ditch the doctrine of a bodily resurrection (including of Jesus), as being a superfluous doctrine. They might as well embrace the Gnostic doctrine of the escape of the immortal spirit from the fleshly body (and without any resurrection of their fleshly body). [Or they might as well embrace the WT/JW doctrine pertaining to the 144,000 which says that such ones enter heaven as spirit beings and will never obtain a fleshy body (an idea which might explain why the Bible says Christ says that in the resurrection their is no marriage/marrying).] If they believe they will be extremely happy in heaven prior to their fleshy body becoming resurrected, then what benefit would they have in their fleshly body eventually becoming resurrected? According to virtually all of the churches (those which don't believe in 'soul sleep', the first Christians to enter heaven did so nearly 2,000 years ago and haven't yet had a bodily resurrection, so my question is: If that idea is true, hypothetically speaking, what benefit would such Christians get by later having their physical body resurrected? I see none.

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

For me, the evidence is strong for the punctuated equilibrium theory of how macroevolution usually takes place, at least in regards to the idea that speciation events tend to take place in an isolated very small subset of the population.That is why those fossils are especially hard to find. But the genetic code in every living species contains a 'fossilized' genetic record of its evolutionary ancestry.

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

See also http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-little-foot-australopithecus-prometheus-sterkfontein-cave-south-africa-02656.html . To me the fossil remains of the Little Foot fossil have relative limb proportions and skull proportions more similar to our species than does the Lucy fossil in comparison to our species. However the somewhat divergent aspect of Little Foot's big toe is less like our species than is the big toe of Lucy's species in comparison to our species. To me the facial reconstruction shown at the above article looks more like own species than do the ones of Lucy's species.

The above article mentions the dating method which was used and the significance of that dating method. I found that very interesting.

27

What aspects do you view most favorably about the WT and/or its religion?

by Disillusioned JW in

even if you disapprove of much about the wt and/or its religion, what aspects do you view most favorably about the wt and/or its religion?

for me one of the things i view most favorably about the wt and its religion is its extremely strong insistence that jws never intentionally kill another human being.

i especially appreciate that regarding those who have been born, but i think some abortions of human embryos might be justifiable.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze my views about the subject of whether the Bible teaches that Christians must not kill humans (including in wars between nations), as stated in my previous posts, were greatly the result of the WT's teachings on the topic. Furthermore the primary scriptural verse which I based my view upon was Matthew 26:52. But a post of yours in this topic thread did get me thinking about whether there are any biblical verses which indicate that Christians should never take up the sword (or use deadly force) against another human. As a result I researched the matter in other commentaries (and in annotations of other study Bibles) than the ones I quoted from in this topic thread. As result of such research I now think that Matthew 26:52 does not indicate that Christians should refrain from being in a police force or even in a military. Also a number of verses referred to by you and others in this topic thread are ones which I am aware of as being problematic for the idea that Christians must not be in a military. Furthermore, some other verses were mentioned in this topic thread which I likely had not thought of before in regards to whether Christians, according to words attributed to Jesus Christ, can be in a military.

It now seems to me that Matthew 26:52 is speaking of those who use deadly force against humans in unlawful ways (ways which violate the laws of human governments), including (but not likely exclusively) against police officers and established governmental military personnel of one's own community (or nation).

However, there are statements in the Bible attributed to Jesus Christ which strongly encourage the followers of Jesus Christ to be nonviolent in regards to fellow humans. These statements include ones about the meek and peacemakers being happy/blessed and becoming called sons/children of God as result and inheriting the the Earth and the kingdom of/from heaven (and of God) (see Matthew 5:5-12), loving one's enemies (and even praying for them) and about turning the other cheek (see Matthew 5:43-48 and Luke 6:27-36), and about loving one's brother.

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

mickbobcat which questions do you have mind that are not answered by evolution?

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

Despite the WT's and young Earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.

Consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "Little Foot". Below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except I don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/

https://www.maropeng.co.za/content/page/little-foot

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/painstaking-study-little-foot-fossil-sheds-light-human-origins-rcna325

The fossil is now dated to being 3.67 million years old - "more than a million years older than previously thought" - and it is more complete than the famous fossil which has been named "Lucy". "Little Foot" is a very impressive fossil of the genus Australopithecus!

27

What aspects do you view most favorably about the WT and/or its religion?

by Disillusioned JW in

even if you disapprove of much about the wt and/or its religion, what aspects do you view most favorably about the wt and/or its religion?

for me one of the things i view most favorably about the wt and its religion is its extremely strong insistence that jws never intentionally kill another human being.

i especially appreciate that regarding those who have been born, but i think some abortions of human embryos might be justifiable.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze the WT view is not against human governments using the sword to carry out justice (even in the use of capital punishment, though I personally disapprove of capital punishment). The WT view however is against Christians intentionally causing human deaths - even in the carrying out of justice and in protecting their nation from attack by other nations. In contrast though, the WT is in favor of Christ and the 144,000 anointed ones (while in heaven) using deadly force to execute people during the battle of Armageddon.

If Christians join a military however, they run the risk of intentionally killing fellow Christians (even of their own denomination or sect) in warfare - as what happened during the USA civil war, during World Wars I and II, and during many other wars conducted between lands of Christendom. But, according to the Bible Jesus told fellow Christians to love one another (to love fellow Christians) and to not harm each other. Christian clergy [Christendom's clergy] (but not any of Jehovah's Witnesses) on each side of battle fields have told Christians soldiers to kill those on the other side (which included other Christian soldiers). How could such people (claiming to be Christians) be heeding the words attributed to Jesus Christ?

Historians have said that in the early years of Christianity Christians (except maybe for a very tiny percentage of Christians) did not join the Roman armies.

17

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

by Diogenesister in

can anyone remember the reasoning the watchtower gave for jesus speaking these words?

if you have a reference that would be even better!.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze in this topic thread you say that God abandoned Jesus, but elsewhere you say (and with stress) that Jesus is God, and you use the traditional translation of John 1:1 as a key element of your proof. It seems to me that the Trinity doctrine is tying you into a knot in this matter. The gospel verse isn't simply claiming that Jesus said that the Father forsook Jesus (nor one personage of a 3-person God), but that God, whom Jesus proclaimed to be his own God (by saying "my God") forsook him.

Even if we for the sake of argument say that the Father and the Son are both God, while maintaining that only one God exists, that would still mean that Jesus was not without God for Jesus would himself be God - even when Jesus died. Yet you say "A just, righteous and holy God has no fellowship with sin. When God made Jesus to actually be sin, he was forced to abandon him so he could die." Was Jesus a righteous and holy God when he died, even though you say Jesus actually became sin? What a quandary the trinity doctrine can cause.

41

Why dont practicing JWS cant accept the fact that the Watchtower Corporation is a commercialized false prophet ?

by Finkelstein in

to the majority of people who investigate the activities of the wts from its beginning history there were obvious false proclamations and doctrines propagated by the wts.. a matter of fact the wts produced a long list of literature that posted proclamations on the front cover and went into detail of things that were suppose to happen, from jesus returning changing the world in which we live and so on.. wonderful things one might say but not factual or either theologically correct .

.

Disillusioned JW

I have to make a slight correction/refinement to what I said in my prior post. It is in regard to the following comment. 'In the back of the WT publications where a price was mentioned for the literature, it did not say "Suggested contribution amount" or similar wording, instead it just said the price (and other times said such was the cost to obtain the literature) and in so doing it gave the impression that one had to pay that price in order to obtain the literature.'

This morning I discovered that two WT books I own use the phrase "a contribution" in reference to the prices of books advertised in the back of the two books.

The book called "Let your Kingdom Come" (Copyright 1981) in the ad for the 1981 edition of the NWT says the following. "You may request your copy of the latest edition of this valuable Bible, sending a contribution of $3.00 (U.S.) toward the printing cost to the appropriate address on page 192. (Price subject to change)". On the next page in the back of the book, four 192-page books are advertised. Regarding those the following is said. "Any one of the above books is available for a contribution of 75c (U.S.). All four for just $3.00 (U.S.). (Prices subject to change)".

The book called True Peace and Security--How Can You Find It? (Copyright 1986) in the ad for the Life--How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? book and in the ad for the You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth book each say the following. "Available for a contribution of $2.50 (U.S.). (Amount subject to change.)"