Posts by Disillusioned JW

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: Where I said "... membranes of lip bilayers ..." I meant ".... membranes of lipid bilayers ...".

38

“Lazarus, come out!”

by Fisherman in

many people here have expressed faith in evolution and in other theories—but in all honesty, do you have any hope whatsoever in your heart or in the back of your mind ?

truthfully..

Fisherman, I have hope in many things. I hope to have a very long health span (more than 90 years). [I am currently under age 60.] I hope to live more 90 years, even to live more than 110 years. Do I know I will achieve such? No. But from what I know, I know it is a possibility and I am working to achieve such.

I hope to become happy much more frequently; I hope that eventually on most days I will be happy during most of my awake hours of the day. [To my memory I have never ever experienced (except for several days of my lifetime) that much time feeling happy, even when I was under 8 years old. But at least most of the time during most of my life I have not been sad or miserable, but rather had a neutral mood.] Perhaps I will achieve such if I manage to reprogram my subconscious mind (such as through repeating many times each day positive affirmations, including expressions of thankfulness, and by mindfulness meditation).

I think my lack of persistent happiness and joy might be caused by my experience of being raised in the JW religion due to its negativity of teachings of: Armageddon, drawing attention to the Hebrew Scriptures [OT] numerous accounts of massive killings of humans, telling people not to question any of the WT's doctrines or else be shunned, telling readers that humans can't solve any of the major problems (including environmental ones, discrimination, murder and warfare, and poverty) of humankind and thus that humans should not even try to solve such problems, telling people (including in pictures in WT literature) that it is wrong for oppressed humans to protest injustices and to resist the unjust actions of authority [whether of human governments, governmental officials, corporations, one's parents, the governing body, or others], etc. I think that such WT teachings likely programmed my subconscious mind in very harmful ways

I hope to become a millionaire (largely through stock market trading) and to retire early and have a pleasant and happy retirement.

I hope that NASA (or some other organization) discovers microscopic life on Mars. I even hope NASA even finds microscopic life in water ice in a crater (or elsewhere) on the south pole of the Moon. If they find such it will be very exciting to me.

I hope that scientists create life from scratch in a laboratory and discover naturalistic conditions (ones thought to have existed in the earth Earth) in which life comes into existence without any intelligent designer/creator (even a human one) involved. If such happens it will be very exciting to me.

I hope that in the future that more than half of the adult population of the USA does not believe in organized religion, or even in a personal god/God. I also hope that such people (and most of the other people in the USA) also live by the principle of "do not do to others, that which you do not want done to you".

I hope that within 15 years the WT ceases all of its operations and goes out of business.

I hope that humankind stops human caused global warming, and soon enough such that the worst potential dangers of human caused climate change (including of global warming) never happen.

I hope that there is never a World War 3 on Earth. A hope that a nuclear war never takes place on Earth.

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Disillusioned JW

Why frame the question as arriving entirely "by chance?" I notice that proponents of creation/design seem to always frame the alternative to creation/design as "by chance", but naturalistic processes don't consist entirely of chance processes. Scientists have discovered that much of nature works in an orderly way, so orderly a manner that scientists have called a number of aspects of nature "laws of nature".

The means that life arrived into existence by naturalistic means involved the orderly laws of nature and the orderly forces of nature, not just chance processes. Scientists have made much progress in discovering types of natural conditions in which numerous organic molecules (including amino acids, peptides, sugars, lipids, membranes of lip bilayers, nucleobases [building blocks of RNA and DNA], and more) spontaneously come into existence. I am confident that scientists will eventually discover conditions which will result in life naturalistically coming into existence by a series of naturalistic processes.

Furthermore, the first biological cell to come into existence must have been much less complex the the simplest cell which currently exists on Earth. The cells which exist today (even the simplest) have evolved (partly by natural selection) over hundreds of millions of years from an ancestor cell.

10

Why are people being born without wisdom teeth?

by Fisherman in

sometimes people are born with deformities but is the human body adapting to modern world with biological changes?.

Disillusioned JW

Fisherman, are you starting to see evidence for human evolution?

Actually teeth don't erupt don't erupt till usually around age 18, hence probably the reason they are called "wisdom" teeth. Apparently people are born with them below the top of gum line, or maybe nobody is born with them at all, but that most people eventually grow them. It is unclear to me if virtually all people are born with wisdom teeth in the jaw, with them never erupting in some people now [that is, that in some people they never erupt (protrude above the top top of the gum line) at all]. or, that perhaps no person is born with them in the jaw, and that some people now never grow them.

A search of the internet does shows articles saying a considerable percentage of people are being born without any wisdom teeth at all (or are they saying without ever developing them?). But other searches show articles saying none of us are born with them (not even in the jaw), but they that later most of us grow them and that for most of they the wisdom teeth eventually erupt, but that for some people they never erupt. See https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-09/rapid-evolution-means-more-babies-being-born-without-wisdom-teeth-and-extra-artery and https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/no-wisdom-teeth.htm .

The first article says the following.

"Babies are being born without wisdom teeth as humans are evolving at a rapid rate, a study has found.

Scientists in Australia have discovered that people are undergoing a 'micro-evolution' in which evolutionary changes can be observed over a short period of time.

Dr Teghan Lucas, of Flinders University in Adelaide, said faces are becoming a lot shorter, with smaller jaws meaning there is less room for teeth.

“This is happening in time as we have learnt to use fire and process foods more. A lot of people are just being born without wisdom teeth,” she said.

The research also found that some people are being born with additional bones in their arms and legs as well as shorter faces, or with abnormal connections of two or more bones in their feet.

Dr Lucas said the study suggests that humans are evolving at a faster rate than at any point in the past 250 years."

The second article says the following.

"But some people never develop wisdom teeth; in fact, these teeth don't appear in about 35 percent of the population [source: Spinney]. Are we on an evolutionary track to losing them altogether?

... Third molars develop entirely after birth, the only teeth to do so. Because these teeth aren't present at birth, it may be harder for nature to select against them [source: LePage].

... Because there's a window of time in which there's no third molar ....

Wisdom teeth get their name from the time at which they make their appearance at the very back of the mouth, which is usually between the ages of 17 and 25 when a young person is starting to get wise and knowledgeable."

40

"Mankind's Search for God" book

by My Name is of No Consequence in

this book was published around 1990, but was never studied (to my knowledge).

does anyone know the reason why?.

Disillusioned JW

Maybe I had used the book to conduct a few Bible study sessions with someone. If I had then that would explain the underlining I have in the first two chapters of the book.

40

"Mankind's Search for God" book

by My Name is of No Consequence in

this book was published around 1990, but was never studied (to my knowledge).

does anyone know the reason why?.

Disillusioned JW

slimboyfat I now think you are probably right that the book was used in some service meeting group discussions (f that is what you mean by "service meeting items") instead of in congregational book studies.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In my prior post where I said "I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers Jewish people calling for the execution of Jews ..." I should have said "I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers of Jewish people calling for the execution of Jesus ...".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

peacefulpete you might be write about the Joseph passage (and of Jesus not having had a brother named James) and I might end up believing it. But if I I do come to believe such, it likely won't be in haste. I would think about it quite about and consider how compatible the idea is with a number of ideas I already hold and think about if those ideas of mine have problems.

Regarding the account in Josephus which refers to Jesus as "called Christ" instead of saing "son of Joseph" or "of Nazareth", perhaps it was because that when he wrote the account (in the late 1 century CE), Christians were much more often referring to Jesus as "Christ" than as "of Nazareth" or "son of Joseph". We see such usage in the NT letters, including in Paul's.

A number of years ago, I read claims that James was both the brother of the Jesus and leader/bishop of the Jerusalem congregation of Christianity, was righteous/just in the minds of non-Christian Jews, and according to Josephus was killed (but with many non-Christian Jews saddened by his death). When I first learned learned that a great many non-Christians Jews were saddened by such a James I thought such was had to believe (due to the portrayal in the gospels of the Jews demanding the death of Jesus). But a few years ago (or so) I was wasn't, because I came to a different view about Jesus (and his likely teachings) and of the views and practices of his earliest Jewish non-Hellenistic followers, as a result of reading various articles.

I learned there were Torah keeping Jews in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus as the Messiah (not just the ones referred to in some of Paul's letters and in the book of Acts), but who did not believe that Jesus is God (or even literally the son of God), and who also didn't believe that Jesus was born from a virgin. [As you know, the earliest gospel account of the NT has no virgin birth account for Jesus, and as you know the book called Matthew portrays Jesus as being Torah keeping and urging fellow Jews to keep the Torah law.] Some groups with at least some of those ideas were ones called Nazarenes, Ebionites, and some other names (I don't remember right now the names of the other groups). I read claims that Jesus the brother of Jesus was a righteous man who was also a Torah keeping Jew (even after his brother Jesus died), and that he was very influential among Jewish Christians largely because he was the fleshly brother of Jesus. He would have known that Jesus had a biological father (one likely named Joseph). The Christianity of that kind of Jew was much more mainstream Jewish (though of a messianic type) than the gentile Christian type. It thus would have been much more acceptable to non-Christian Jews than Paul's type of Christianity would have been to them. I thus think that such a Jewish follower of Jesus, who was known as keeping the Mosaic law faithfully and for being righteous, and for not saying that Jesus was God, and for saying that the literal father of Jesus was a Jewish man, would be respected by many non-Christian Jews, and that his death (by murder) would be mourned by many of them.

I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers Jewish people calling for the execution of Jews, nor the account of the Jewish religious leaders plotting to have Jesus killed, and the Jewish religious leaders had a sham trial conducted in a manner which broke many of their own rules. I have learned (from Jewish web sites) that throughout over 1,000 years the Jews have been saying they did not do the horrible things to Jesus which the gospels say they did. I remember that they say the accounts in the gospels slander the Jewish people (including the religions leaders) and has influenced many people over nearly 2,000 years to persecute them as a result. I read that the Jewish people have long had various rules about how a Jewish suspect is to be tried and that the rules forbid doing things the way the gospels accuse them of having done to Jesus. They give details of the rules, including going down the street asking is there is anyone who wishes to come forward and say something in defense of the accused. They also say that their courts would never condemn a fellow Jew to become crucified! According to their law back them, even if they had a Jew hung (such as upon a tree or a stake), he would not be executed that way, but would be killed some other way instead, and only after he was already dead would he be hanged/hung.

The NT gospel accounts portray Pilate as kind just ruler who tried to avoid having Jesus executed, but history shows that he was ruthless instead. The gospels try to make it appear that the Romans were not really guilty for the death of Jesus, by claiming that the Jews insisted upon his death instead. That scenario is unlikely.

Consider what is said at the following sites:

- https://outreachjudaism.org/who-killed-jesus/ which says the following (among making many other good points).

'In contrast to the gracious, benign caricature of Pontius Pilate conveyed in the Gospels, according to noted historians, including Philo and Josephus, the Roman Governor was renowned for “his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, and savage ferocity”15 and as a “cruel despot who executed troublemakers without a trial and ordered his soldiers to randomly attack, beat, and kill scores of Jews.”16 Not surprisingly, this record of Pilate’s brutality is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament. A cruel tyrant such as Pilate would not have hesitated to execute any leader whose followers posed a potential threat to Roman rule. The notion that the Jews would or could demand of Pilate to crucify Jesus is preposterous.'

- https://antisemitism.adl.org/deicide/ which says in part the following.

"This narrative is patently false. While certain leaders in the local Jewish community felt that Jesus’ teachings were politically subversive, experts have gathered that Jesus was not perceived as particularly threatening or enraging to the Jews around him.4 Modern readers misinterpret the trial of Jesus as a conflict between Jews and Christians, but this does not square with the Jewish origins of Christianity or with the fact that Christianity emerged years after Jesus’ death. The only non-Jews present in the story of Jesus’ crucifixion were the Romans."

- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jesus-the-crucifixion-pontius-pilate-and-the-new-testament is a Jewish source presenting a Jewish view. It says in part the following.

'Concerning Jesus’ executioner, Pontius Pilate,* we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his “heart of hearts” really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity’s founder—indeed the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity’s only hope for gaining legitimacy was to “prove” to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, “Crucify him.” The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate’s power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus’ crucifixion.'

40

"Mankind's Search for God" book

by My Name is of No Consequence in

this book was published around 1990, but was never studied (to my knowledge).

does anyone know the reason why?.

Disillusioned JW

I remember studying at least part of the book it in the congregational book study (which consisted of the entire congregation meeting in the kingdom hall instead of in homes). In my copy of the book I have answers (to the questions at the bottom of the pages) underlined in the first two chapters of the book. I would only have done that if the book was being studied in the congregational book study. Though the book is designed to keep JW's believing in the JW religion and perhaps to be useful to convert people to the JW religion, the book is interesting to me, as a guide to further research (since I can look up the sources and quoted in the book to learn more and since it gives some ideas which I can do further research about in other publications. I appreciate the chapter on Buddhism and part of the chapter on Modern Disbelief. By it mentioning the names of some atheists, it causes some reasons to think about atheism and it causes some of those to want to do research about the atheists mentioned. For example, I eventually obtained books written by Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche, and read some by Feuerbach. I especially appreciated two of Darwin's books about evolution (including On The Origin of Species). I have also purchased books which both describe and promote Buddhism. I also have a book by Durant called The Story of Philosophy.

I think that a number of the philosophical ideas of the Buddha have utility and also compatible with both Christianity and atheistic naturalism. Now there is something called Secular Buddhism.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

In light of what you said about "Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" this matter is now difficult for me to decide upon, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus says the following - and it agrees with what I said (including about the significance of the use of the phrase "who was called Christ").

'In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (James the Just).[2] This occurred after a large number of Jews complained and petitioned the king. Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

While the authenticity of some passages in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews has been subject to debate, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the discussion of the death of James in Section 9 of Book 20 to be authentic.[4][5]

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, and scholars agree that Jesus the son of Damneus is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ", who is mentioned along with the identification of James.[6] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.[7] '

After doing a search a moment ago for ""Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" I noticed that a Christ myth web page at https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html (of a site which many years ago I had read some other pages from) says something which agrees with you. There it says the following.

"When we remove Christian interpolation from the "Jamesian" reference in Josephus, it becomes clear that James was the brother, not of a non-existent 'Jesus Christ', but of Jesus bar Damneus, high priest briefly in the year 63. In the increasingly violent rivalry between the two major families that had controlled the high priesthood for a century, James was the brother of one contender. Together with his supporters, he was eliminated by the boss of the rival faction. Briefly, the 'aggrieved' family gained control of the Temple. But once the new Roman procurator was installed he put pressure on Agrippa II to replace Jesus bar Damneus with a more pro-Roman candidate – and Jesus, son of Gamaliel became high priest.

... If you drop the spurious clause about "being called the Christ", doubtless inserted by a Christian editor, then this James would have been the brother of the guy who eventually made high priest because of James' execution! "