Posts by Marvin Shilmer

16

Preconceived Ideas

by Frenchy in

jw
friends

from the article: acquire a heart agreeable to jehovah w10/15/01.

7. a key requirement for acquiring a pure heart is that of gaining accurate knowledge of gods will and purposes.

there is only one source of that knowledge, the inspired word of god.

This morning I read the same statements and began wondering. One question is: Since these articles are designed particularly for the Witnesses themselves, might these statements be preparation for some dramatic doctrinal shifts regarding current "cherished" ideas? They stand out way too much for the regular run of the mill Watchtower study article about personal Bible study and heart condition.

Like one good and faithful friend has said to me many times, one thing you can count on with the Society is change. Too bad they institute it only after so many of their own faithful ones have been vilified on the Watchtower alter of "don’t run ahead," only to turn around and admit later that the former "running ahead" thinking was correct! It’s man dominating man to man’s injury!

35

Mistakes Admitted by WTS?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

mistakes admitted by wts?

i seek feedback on the following series of questions:.

1. has the watchtower society publicly admitted its mistakes?

Marvin Shilmer

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

In writing the Society advocates admitting mistakes, and apologizing too for that matter. But what do they actually do?

I agree that on very rare occasions the Society has admitted a specific mistake outright. The one occasion coming to my mind is of the 1979 district conventions where speakers were told to frankly acknowledge the WTS’ responsibility for disappointment surrounding the 1975 date. This admission was published using sideways language in the 1980 yearbook. But this admission is so rare it stands out as practically unique. So what is policy and what do they do?

Watchtower policy is to admit error. But, here’s the catch, the version of admission they apply to themselves as a matter of policy is different that you and I would normally expect and different from what they advocate for others. Policy is:

“When we make mistakes, as all imperfect humans do, let us be ready to acknowledge them, even as the “faithful and discreet slave,” made up of imperfect fleshly men, has had to make corrections.” (w81 8/15 28)

What does this mean? It means, for themselves, the Society pretends making a correction is tantamount to making an admission of error.

Now my questions are:

Is this a correct reading of the Society’s policy, and what moral problems do you see with this sort of policy?

HS, I agree with your comments as they apply to liability. But the Society does, I believe, assert that it admits its mistakes. Apply the liability problems you presented to what I believe is the Society’s policy and actions and tell me how you think it washes out.

35

Mistakes Admitted by WTS?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

mistakes admitted by wts?

i seek feedback on the following series of questions:.

1. has the watchtower society publicly admitted its mistakes?

Marvin Shilmer

Clarification:

1. I am not asking about whether the Watchtower Society has ever apologized for mistakes, but whether they admit …

2. My questions are not about isolated incidents of admission. My question is about what policy the Watchtower Society has on the matter of admitting mistakes. Naturally, policy results in something more extensive than would isolated incidents, so whatever they have done should be noticeable. This wider application is what I seek feedback on. (Of course whether a policy asserting itself as admission amounts to actual admission is part of what this thread is about)

With these two clarifications in mind, let me restate the four questions with some new and emphasized language:

1. Has the Watchtower Society publicly admitted its mistakes as a matter of policy?

2. If so, how have they done it?

3. If not, do you think the Watchtower Society asserts it has admitted its mistakes as a matter of policy?

4. If so, how have they claimed it was done?

35

Mistakes Admitted by WTS?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

mistakes admitted by wts?

i seek feedback on the following series of questions:.

1. has the watchtower society publicly admitted its mistakes?

Marvin Shilmer

Mistakes Admitted by WTS?

I seek feedback on the following series of questions:

1. Has the Watchtower Society publicly admitted its mistakes?

2. If so, how did they do it?

3. If not, do you think the Watchtower Society asserts it has admitted its mistakes?

4. If so, how do they claim to have done this?

There is some peculiar language in an old Watchtower magazine that speaks to these questions. Before presenting it I would first like your feedback.

68

How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH in

jw
friends

there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello again, Abaddon

A steady guide for me is to act as best I can on what I know rather than what I don’t know.

Though I know life can beget our reality of life, I do not know what could have started other realties of life possibly responsible for our origin. I just do not know, so I cannot logically argue that question. But this does not mean I must ignore the proven fact that life can beget our reality of life, and this fact tips the scale in my mind and it agrees with scientifically discovered facts.

My reason for holding a belief in a creator God stems from what I know of human spirituality and what I know from my own experience of what nurtures it. This is the closest I can come to offering any sense of what other reality of life could be responsible for us. This extension of belief of how we originated (from a creator God) is faith on my part and not directly from scientifically derived fact. For me to take the discussion further would be little more than an exercise in futility.

I do not know what you are talking of when speaking of “the mirror thing.” That must refer to someone else’s comments.

68

How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH in

jw
friends

there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Abaddon

I enjoy spirited discussion, and appreciate your feedback.

For example; "science has proved life can beget life but has not proved the inanimate can beget life".
You haven't proved that either!

It is established scientific fact that life can beget life. I happen to know this from my own experimentation on the subject, with my wife. We have bore fruitage, and it is living.

Unless I missed the announcement from the scientific community, there is no proof of life produced from the inanimate. It is true that this has been suggested as what took place, but this is an extrapolation, not proof that it actually occurred. As I said before, proving this would require observing the inanimate producing life outside the reach of anything living. A scientist creating life in a lab experiment would probably not suffice to prove that the inanimate produces life, because the scientist would be alive and setting up and/or running the experiment.

On the question of how our reality of life got started I have held out the same standard of proof by asking the same question of two options, origin from life and origin from the inanimate.

What's the big deal about admitting you believe in god primarily because you want to and in spite of the lack of scientifc evidence for a 'god' origin of the Universe? If 'faith' is so great, then why not use it, instead of dressing up a non-scientific arguement in scientific clothes and hoping it will convince people?

My belief in God stems from my belief in a spiritual source, and this is an act of faith not science. I know I have spirituality (sense and need of purpose) and I know the Bible nurtures that spirituality. Since the Bible teaches of a creator God then I believe it. As I have said before, this is a result of faith, not science, but it’s still me acting according to what I know because I know I have spirituality and I know the Bible nurtures it.

My belief that our reality was started by life is a different subject, and I think scientific fact supports this belief stronger than belief that the inanimate or nothing started life. This is because we know life can beget life but we do not know that the inanimate can produce life. I believe this simple point of fact tips the scale in favor of our reality starting from some life form.

68

How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH in

jw
friends

there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

Marvin Shilmer

Greetings, Jan

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Like many creationists, you confuse "what" and "how". We know pretty well what happened. If we don't know the "how" (or, even, the "why") that doesn't change anything.
If you find a human body, it is a fact that a person has died, and is dead. It remains a fact even if you are never able to find out why or how he or she died.

Better put, you confused my comments about “how” with “what,” or your “what.”

We know our physical surroundings, including our bodies, at least as far as our understanding goes to now. How it got started in order to be that way and whether there was any guidance along the way is another question, at this point one of faith. Conclusions, at this point, that our reality was started by some life form are stronger than as those that the inanimate or nothing started our reality do. This is my opinion because science has proved life can beget life but has not proved the inanimate can beget life.

68

How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH in

jw
friends

there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Rem

I do not dispute facts that evolutionists use, I only question some conclusions from those facts. My comments have addressed reason for belief in creation.

It is true that evolution does not specifically address the first cause. More specifically evolution tries to explain what happened afterward. It tries to explain the mechanics of how things got they way they are. All this is well and good, and I have no complaint against this endeavor. But when people (call them evolutionist or whatever you want) attempt to ridicule other people’s faith in a creator is should be noted that the fact of life begetting life speaks in favor of a creator. Also noteworthy is the fact that suggestions of the initial moments of the "Big Bang" also requires faith, faith that physical laws will one day be discovered or understood so that they can be explained.

When I said I know evolution depends on the inanimate producing life, I was not precise enough. I should have said I know that some evolutionists’ conclusions depend on the inanimate producing life.

Greetings, Moxy

It seems my comments about what Jan wrote are misunderstood. I applaud the facts he shared, the more the better. My comments addressed the inevitable (and seemingly perpetual) discussion of creator or not. But, specific to what Jan asserted, I did address one of his conclusions, the one about junk code and kinship meaning common ancestry by descent. Maybe I misread him, but I don’t think so. What he concludes as commonality by descent (chimp to human) could also be non-decent commonality by initial use of common building material.

68

How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH in

jw
friends

there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

Marvin Shilmer

Hi again, Seeker

I appreciate your feedback.

How we got from a pinhead-sized universe to now is very well known and explained.

On this point I believe you are misinformed. Known laws of physics fail to explain the first few milliseconds of the "pen head’s" expansion, in fact known physical laws run contrary to this expansion, it should not have happened. This is why faith is required to believe it as scientists have suggested it. Again though, I am not a scientist. All I can go by is my reading of conclusions of recognized authorities on the subject, and that expressed in layman’s terms.

However, my comment to you was based on your acceptance of a Creator, even though the origin of this Creator is just as unknown. So you do accept the unknown, although for that you take the proverbial leap of faith. I have no objection to that, and I respect faith.

Because my beliefs are decided by what I know does not mean each is beyond question or correct. My beliefs in an intelligent creator are based on what I know, but my conclusions may yet prove wrong because facts have a funny habit of meaning one thing when we take them for something else at first. For example, it is a fact that people today have an inner need for purpose, practically everyone searches for it. This is what I call a spiritual need. The fact that so many humans (if not all) have this spiritual need can lead to several beliefs, and mine is among them. Existence of this spiritual need is one thing leading me to the conclusion of a purposeful creator because not only do we know that life can produce life, we also know that life can produce likes. And, it just so happens that belief in a purposeful creator makes things like eyesight a little easier to explain. So, in this case though my beliefs stem from a known (existence of spirituality in humans), I could be wrong, but I don’t think so, at least at this point. At this point in time, at the end of the day we know life produces life. We do not know that the inanimate produces life. For me this tips the scale in favor or creation.

I will add here that scientist creating life in a lab experiment would probably not suffice to prove that the inanimate produces life, because the scientist would be alive and running the experiment. The inanimate producing life would have to be observed in a setting outside the reach of anything living for it to be proved. This is tough standard. But if it is true then it will one day be observed. If evolution is true, how could it be otherwise?

68

How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH in

jw
friends

there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

Marvin Shilmer

Hi, Seeker

I know evolution depends on the inanimate producing life.

I know science has never proved the inanimate producing life is a fact, though scientists have concluded it.

I know science has proved that life begets life.

Since my beliefs are decided by what I know then I have little choice but to fall down on the side of life begetting life. This is siding with science.

Until science proves that the inanimate can produce life then evolution has a critical weakness.
Because of that yet unknown knowledge, you view evolution as having a critical weakness. You decided this based on an unknown.

That statement of yours is not sound. It is a known that science has yet to prove the inanimate can produce life, not an unknown as you assert. Accordingly my view does not stem from the unknown but the known.

Because the belief of evolution has a critical weakness does not mean I reject scientific facts. If a belief has a critical weakness it means no more than that. One day the critical weakness might be resolved, or maybe not. It depends on what we learn from yet undiscovered facts.

In terms of established scientific fact, the typical belief in a creator has a fundamental weakness too. While my brief accounting does have facts enough to establish a sound reason for believing life as we know it did not just happen but rather was caused by another life, the same facts do not scientifically establish whether that "creator" life was intelligent or that it produced us on purpose or by design.

Belief in an intelligent creator and teleology requires faith.

Belief that the known universe began as something the size of the head of a pin also requires faith.