WesMordine I feel is just limited by his dogma but won't admit it to himself. He has told me in the past that he isn't permitted to accept a scientific stance that disagrees with the bible. I find that sad more than anything else that a religious institution could control people's thoughts to that depth and that probably explains why the JW movement has the lowest retention rate of any church. So I don't bother with him in that respect because it is a waste of my time.
Very interesting way to put it.
No one forces me or controls my thoughts. To become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, a person must go through an in-depth study of the Scriptures and has to be able to demonstrate with them why he is personally convinced of having found the truth.
This is done after the person first decides of his or her own will to dedicate their life to Jehovah God and His service. No one is forced to be a Witness. No one is born a Witness. No one is paid to be a Witness.
It is a way of life, not a nametag. Therefore, all who claim to be Witnesses must be actively involved in witnessing, as well as in upholding in their personal life God's laws and principles for all their life. If they don't, they cannot be considered "nominal" witnesses. Of how many other religions is that true, I don't know.
Furthermore, if it is discovered that a Witness has committed a serious sin and does not show repentance, they are removed from the congregation. If the sin is serious enough they are still removed regardless... unlike other religions in which child molesters are kept as priests. Several thousands have to be disciplined in this manner every year. Many of them accept the discipline and are readmitted some time later.
Having said that, there are well over 7 million Witnesses active worldwide, when only 5,100 were active in 1,914. Nowadays, an average of 2,000 new Witnesses come into the congregation weekly. For an organization that doesn't grow by baptizing children into their numbers, that growth is very important.
Your point of view is incorrect, simply put.
Thanks for that lengthy explanation that didn't really answer my point. Whenever we have discussed evolution or any other science that you deny (such as archaeological evidence against the bible or anthropology that proves humanity's existence goes back further than 6000 years) you have never once said "I don't believe..." "I cannot accept..." "I deny theory x" etc. It is always "We don't believe..." "We do not accept..." "We JWs deny..." "Our church says..." as though you do not have the liberty to make up your own mind on these issues.
So what would happen to a JW who came to accept evolution and that human history goes back more than 6000 years?
_________________________ Signed in to remove the link to a dead forum.
Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 9653
Loc: In a country with no army =)
Quote:
So what would happen to a JW who came to accept evolution and that human history goes back more than 6000 years?
Never heard of it happening.
My personally-acquired knowledge of the Bible convinces ME of what I believe, that is, that God is the Creator.
Believing in the Living God who inspired the Scriptures is to me first-hand evidence from a Witness present at the time of creation, versus the educated guesses of imperfect men and women, which may or may not be influenced by the dogma of denying the supernatural.
____________________
An alternate answer would be: I've never personally heard of it happening. But I have heard of the opposite (a former Atheist scientist coming to accept the existence of Jehovah and His account of what happened) more than once.
What happens to them? (rhetorical)
_________________________ Crushingly Beautiful (tm) Ladies - (as of March 31st, 2013)
versus the educated guesses of imperfect men and women, which may or may not be influenced by the dogma of denying the supernatural.
I'm not going to bother gracing that ignorance with an answer.
Originally Posted By: WesMordine
But I have heard of the opposite (a former Atheist scientist coming to accept the existence of Jehovah and His account of what happened) more than once.
What does argumentum ad populum prove? But to answer your question, nothing would happen to them despite what Ben Stein claims. However, if you are going to attempt to use "goddidit" or "nonspecificintelligentdesignerdidit" as a scientific answer, you need to provide evidence to back it up as a scientific claim. The scientific method is not subject to personal feelings and intuition, but actual evidence.
I myself have worked on digs containing human remains that are older than 6000 years and we have a wealth of evidence to prove the age of those sites. But hey, I guess I'm just part of some Great Atheist Conspiracy(TM).
Edited by The_Amber_Spyglass (05/20/1003:26 AM)
_________________________ Signed in to remove the link to a dead forum.
Nobody said otherwise but if people who crap all over the scientific method out of ignorance and piety actually knew what they were talking about, we might get somewhere. As it is they prefer misrepresentation and outright lies over an informed opinion and make themselves look stupid in the process. Look at the contrived outrage at the beginning of this thread. How many dealt with the issues at hand? Actually, you were the only one when you queried whether the Neanderthal had spirituality. Others were too busy feeling offended.
_________________________ Signed in to remove the link to a dead forum.
Isn't it true, Wes, that the JW who comes to openly accept evolution will be "disfellowshipped" and consequently "shunned," or at the very least, "reproofed" until he backs down?
I am sure you have sufficient knowledge of your church to answer this as a hypothetical.
And yet we rational people with an understanding of how science works, how a concept must be falsifiable, how it must have evidence for it as well as evidence against alternate hypotheses to be accepted as valid... we are the ones who are accused of being dogmatic when religious types comes out with stuff like this:
Believing in the Living God who inspired the Scriptures is to me first-hand evidence from a Witness present at the time of creation, versus the educated guesses of imperfect men and women, which may or may not be influenced by the dogma of denying the supernatural.
_________________________ Signed in to remove the link to a dead forum.
Previous Topic
Index
