• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dogma

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Definition of dogma
1 a : something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
-- Merriam-Webster

So, dogmata are defining, authoritative positions necessary to be held to belong to a group, party, church. This keeps the group together and "clean" in their position. If someone states to be a member of a dogmatic group, I know exactly what position s/he holds. Therefore dogmata should be formulated and upheld.

Dogmata can be, and often are, wrong (not in accord with reality). It may have been right or considered to be right once upon a time but holding on to an ancient dogma just makes the whole group wrong. Therefore dogmata should be discussed and, if found to be wrong, abandoned.


What's your position on dogma? Examples? Reasons for or against?

I have read this OP a couple of times but I don’t know what you are asking for specifically.

I used to hold to the dogma of the church I was raised in, but as I got older I became more concerned with understanding the reasons why I believe something rather than just accepting something because those in my church did. No one had answers to my many questions, so I left that church and tried other religions but still found no satisfying answers.

When I tried to embrace evolution and science after feeling let down by religion....I faced the same problem. There were no satisfying answers there either. It was as empty and cold as the church I left. Letting go of God then, was not an option....I just had to find him, but I didn’t know where.

It is in my nature to ask “why” about everything.....I used to drive my mother nuts because my questions often had no solidly based answers....there were lots of opinions, and platitudes, but nothing concrete....I despaired of ever finding a way to know God and gain an understanding of why we are here?

I don’t subscribe to dogma per se...nor do I have time for blind belief. I have to know where a belief comes from and what supports it. My beliefs are based on 48 years of studying the Bible, because I found its contents so intriguing that I set myself the goal of understanding its overall message.

This is an ancient book, but it’s not a book about time...it’s a book about human nature which basically does not change. It’s about the Creator’s dealings with humankind and his allowing them to reap what they have sown, as an important object lesson, with a purpose.

Any beliefs that I could not accommodate by reasoning on its origins, or evaluating its impact on those who held it, I abandoned. I used the Bible as my yardstick because I believe it is a guidebook or instruction manual from the Creator. Correlating everything with the Bible determined my acceptance of any teaching. If that is being dogmatic, then I am guilty.

When you say “not in accord with reality” I have to ask...who’s reality? Your view or interpretation of reality might be very different to mine. Not all humans are spiritual by nature but it is a uniquely human trait. Rather than fight my spiritual nature, I choose to feed it. It nurtures a part of me that cold, hard, godless science cannot touch.

I don’t know if that has answered your questions or not, but there is only one global brotherhood of spiritual souls who speak the same ‘language’ that I do, and they hold to the same beliefs as I do. I understood and accepted their teachings after careful study. I have never wanted to leave.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The problem is, we don't seem wired for cosmopolitan or large group cohesion. Anything beyond Dunbar's number seems to need some artificial strategem to cohere. As Jonathan Haidt points out, we're wired both to unite into teams and to unite against other teams. Cohesion seems to require some sort of threat; some Other.

That is quite an interesting point. Thanks for bringing that up.

I'm not sure how I could express all my thoughts about that without running to pages -- which I presume neither one of us has the time for.

So, just a quick note or two. Many large organizations already exist that exceed Dunbar's number by orders of magnitude, yet remain cohesive despite the absence of anything so intense as "Two Minute Hates". Haidt (and you) do have a point that an Other seems to be needed for group cohesion much beyond Dunbar's number. But let us not forget than an Other appears to be optional for group cohesion much below Dunbar's number.

Now the most cohesive very large organizations in this world tend for the most part to be large, multi-international corporations. Those are more often the case than that they are militaries -- since there are a whole lot more mega-corps than there are countries. Large corporations have competitors that do indeed fill the Other role to one extent or another.

But the devil is in the details. How prominent a role that Other plays in the cohesion of a corporation seems to vary dramatically from one corporation to another, depending on its corporate culture. Some seem to make a bigger deal about their competitors than do others.

Nevertheless, I have not even once heard tell of a mega-corp coming even close to demonizing its competitors to the extent that nations sometimes do. So far as I know, there is not a mega-corp in the world with a "Two Minute Hate", ubiquitous posters of drooling enemies plastered on its walls, 24/7 screens blaring hate propaganda, etc. Mega-corps might make use of an Other to help them cohere, but they do not seem to rely on such to anywhere near the same extent as a nation and other such entities sometimes do. And, in my personal experience (which is limited), the competitors are seldom true "Others" in Martin Buber's sense of the word. Ford does not portray Toyota as wholly unlike Ford. The Apple - Microsoft animosity was due to Steven Job's personality at least as much as to any need Apple had for an Other. And so forth.

But if an Other is not the primary glue holding together corporations of 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 or more employees, then what is?

I suggest we should look at the way those corporations are typically subdivided and subdivided again and again into small groups. Groups often significantly below Dunbar's number in size. At the level of the Department, the Section, or the Team, an Other is at most an option, rather than a requirement.

So, to take an unlikely hypothetical (unlikely because I would be loathe to found a religion), if I were to found a religion, I would do whatever I could to organize it into small divisions, units, or cells below a size that might require an Other to be of much importance. Nor would doing so require a ten-layer hierarchy. The British governed India with only three levels of management.

The point is, at smaller group sizes, shared values and goals can become the primary glue holding groups together. "Corporate Culture", in business parlance.

Again, I don't have time (and neither do you, I'll wager) to fully express my thoughts here.

Huxley proposed such a scientifically engineered society in Brave New World, and Skinner touched on it in Walden Two -- both interesting reads.

Good points. Of course, both Huxley and Skinner were not writing comprehensive guides to modern social engineering practices. Both authors are relatively speaking fossils compared to the techniques of 30 years ago, when I was active in an industry related to Public Relations -- which is the leading industry today when it comes to discovering and advancing new techniques of social engineering. How much more Huxley and Skinner are fossilized today!

(I still love Huxley, though. His "social engineering" might be way out of date -- if it was ever more than fiction to begin with -- but not his core themes.)

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating employing contemporary techniques to exploit people, to dupe them, or to reduce them to cattle. It's just that -- knowing what a few of those techniques actually are -- I can see how they can be used to better ends than the PR industry that invented them ever dreamed of using them to achieve. For instance, it has annoyed me for decades that no one ever decides to socially engineer people to be true to themselves. But I happen to know for a fact that it could have been done with the techniques of 30 years ago, let alone with more advanced ones.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Even so, I tend to favour the more flexible doctrines which may not necessarily even qualify as dogma. An example of this would be the Wiccan Rede, "If it harms none, do as you will"

I agree with you that the Rede is most likely not a point of dogma, but perhaps the Wiccan equivalent of dogma. I would call it more along the lines of a formal expression of values or morals.

But you know, upon thinking about it -- and given human nature -- I'm sure there's a coven or two out there somewhere that treats the Rede like Christians treat the Nicene Creed.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
I agree with you that the Rede is most likely not a point of dogma, but perhaps the Wiccan equivalent of dogma. I would call it more along the lines of a formal expression of values or morals.

But you know, upon thinking about it -- and given human nature -- I'm sure there's a coven or two out there somewhere that treats the Rede like Christians treat the Nicene Creed.

It's an odd one as despite it being an established moral tenet, it's almost always taken as a guideline and subject to personal interpretation. My gut feeling is to say that it usually isn't dogma. However, as you point out, it may well qualify as such within a given coven. Unfortunately the esoteric nature of those covens make it difficult to say with absolute certainty ... maybe just 99.9% certainty ;)
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Definition of dogma
1 a : something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
-- Merriam-Webster

So, dogmata are defining, authoritative positions necessary to be held to belong to a group, party, church. This keeps the group together and "clean" in their position. If someone states to be a member of a dogmatic group, I know exactly what position s/he holds. Therefore dogmata should be formulated and upheld.

Dogmata can be, and often are, wrong (not in accord with reality). It may have been right or considered to be right once upon a time but holding on to an ancient dogma just makes the whole group wrong. Therefore dogmata should be discussed and, if found to be wrong, abandoned.


What's your position on dogma? Examples? Reasons for or against?
your post would include a standing belief held in common
and for grounds of sound reasoning

example......God IS the Almighty
and in the scheme of superlatives......yes

in my lay of reasoning.....dogma is a practice
rosary recitals
gesture of / in ceremony....waving hands/laying of hands
beliefs that are held but not supported....Jesus walked on water

and the line I draw....
would disbelief be cause for denial
as you attempt to enter heaven
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Definition of dogma
1 a : something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
-- Merriam-Webster

So, dogmata are defining, authoritative positions necessary to be held to belong to a group, party, church. This keeps the group together and "clean" in their position. If someone states to be a member of a dogmatic group, I know exactly what position s/he holds. Therefore dogmata should be formulated and upheld.

Dogmata can be, and often are, wrong (not in accord with reality). It may have been right or considered to be right once upon a time but holding on to an ancient dogma just makes the whole group wrong. Therefore dogmata should be discussed and, if found to be wrong, abandoned.


What's your position on dogma? Examples? Reasons for or against?

The problem with dogma is that it's dogmatic. ;)
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
What's your position on dogma? Examples? Reasons for or against?

I think dogma is necessary, but the problem I see is that people aren't honest about the dogma in their own belief systems.

I believe their is some dogma in science, sometimes I think dogma and "values" might be overlapping. So:

- Believers in science think that predictable and repeatable evidence is crucial to science, we hold that view dogmatically.
- Believers in science believe in logic, dogmatically,
- Believers in science believe in discovery, dogmatically.

And so on.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Now the most cohesive very large organizations in this world tend for the most part to be large, multi-international corporations. Those are more often the case than that they are militaries -- since there are a whole lot more mega-corps than there are countries. Large corporations have competitors that do indeed fill the Other role to one extent or another.
Corporations are not social groups and as such not subject to Dunbar's Number. "Members" are exchangeable, there is no common goal and there is no need for an other or for dogma.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I think dogma is necessary, but the problem I see is that people aren't honest about the dogma in their own belief systems.

I believe their is some dogma in science, sometimes I think dogma and "values" might be overlapping. So:

- Believers in science think that predictable and repeatable evidence is crucial to science, we hold that view dogmatically.
- Believers in science believe in logic, dogmatically,
- Believers in science believe in discovery, dogmatically.

And so on.
Oh yes, science is dogmatic but not in predictability, logic or discovery. Those are defining characteristics.
But other things are dogmatic like conservation of energy for example. Well tested theories become dogma over time.
But science is also dogmatically undogmatic. The creed is that no theory should be untouchable (though some practically are).
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Oh yes, science is dogmatic but not in predictability, logic or discovery. Those are defining characteristics.
But other things are dogmatic like conservation of energy for example. Well tested theories become dogma over time.
But science is also dogmatically undogmatic. The creed is that no theory should be untouchable (though some practically are).

I think the values I listed are held dogmatically. I think things like conservation of energy SHOULD NOT be held dogmatically, as you said, in science, no theory should be untouchable : )
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So, just a quick note or two. Many large organizations already exist that exceed Dunbar's number by orders of magnitude, yet remain cohesive despite the absence of anything so intense as "Two Minute Hates". Haidt (and you) do have a point that an Other seems to be needed for group cohesion much beyond Dunbar's number. But let us not forget than an Other appears to be optional for group cohesion much below Dunbar's number.
Good point. I wasn't thinking of an ordinary corporation, factory or workplace, though. I had in mind governments, religions, political parties, &c, which need a high loyalty index to cohere.

Most organizations don't need such strong solidarity as to need intensive team-building strategies. Usually just paying people to show up, do a good job and behave themselves is motivation enough. Employees gain a paycheck and perhaps a degree of identity and purpose. No external threat needed.
Now the most cohesive very large organizations in this world tend for the most part to be large, multi-international corporations. Those are more often the case than that they are militaries -- since there are a whole lot more mega-corps than there are countries. Large corporations have competitors that do indeed fill the Other role to one extent or another.
Not sure I follow. Large corporations have stronger in-group solidarity than the military? I can't quite see a mail room clerk laying down his life for a fellow employee.
What am I missing, here?
But the devil is in the details. How prominent a role that Other plays in the cohesion of a corporation seems to vary dramatically from one corporation to another, depending on its corporate culture. Some seem to make a bigger deal about their competitors than do others.

Nevertheless, I have not even once heard tell of a mega-corp coming even close to demonizing its competitors to the extent that nations sometimes do. So far as I know, there is not a mega-corp in the world with a "Two Minute Hate", ubiquitous posters of drooling enemies plastered on its walls, 24/7 screens blaring hate propaganda, etc. Mega-corps might make use of an Other to help them cohere, but they do not seem to rely on such to anywhere near the same extent as a nation and other such entities sometimes do. And, in my personal experience (which is limited), the competitors are seldom true "Others" in Martin Buber's sense of the word. Ford does not portray Toyota as wholly unlike Ford. The Apple - Microsoft animosity was due to Steven Job's personality at least as much as to any need Apple had for an Other. And so forth.

But if an Other is not the primary glue holding together corporations of 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 or more employees, then what is?
I don't see external threats, competitors or The Other being a strong motivator among the ordinary company employees. A paychecck and identity as an employee would be enough. Let the executives obsess about the competition.
If more cohesion is needed, maybe sponsor a football team.
I suggest we should look at the way those corporations are typically subdivided and subdivided again and again into small groups. Groups often significantly below Dunbar's number in size. At the level of the Department, the Section, or the Team, an Other is at most an option, rather than a requirement.

So, to take an unlikely hypothetical (unlikely because I would be loathe to found a religion), if I were to found a religion, I would do whatever I could to organize it into small divisions, units, or cells below a size that might require an Other to be of much importance. Nor would doing so require a ten-layer hierarchy. The British governed India with only three levels of management.

The point is, at smaller group sizes, shared values and goals can become the primary glue holding groups together. "Corporate Culture", in business parlance.
I agree. Even with huge corporations, like Spain's Mondragon, a shared corporate culture and values can cement an organization into a pretty cohesive unit.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I have read this OP a couple of times but I don’t know what you are asking for specifically.

I used to hold to the dogma of the church I was raised in, but as I got older I became more concerned with understanding the reasons why I believe something rather than just accepting something because those in my church did. No one had answers to my many questions, so I left that church and tried other religions but still found no satisfying answers.
Do I understand you right that you think that that what I would call dogmata of your new faith are just answers that flow logically from your central dogma?

From my point of view JW have about the most, the most strict and most enforced dogmata of all denominations.
And I agree that some of those dogmata are beneficial. Pacifism and being apolitical (as a religious group) are dogmata that would fit other denominations well.
Some other dogmata are not so nice.

What do you think are the dogmata of JWs and do you think it a good thing to keep them as unquestionable?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Do I understand you right that you think that that what I would call dogmata of your new faith are just answers that flow logically from your central dogma?

We never use the word so it is utterly foreign to me. Since we base all of our beliefs on the Bible, there are only Biblical Laws and principles that we base our belief system on. If you carefully consider these laws and principles you get to understand that morality and adherence to these laws are beneficial. They seldom have negative consequences.

From my point of view JW have about the most, the most strict and most enforced dogmata of all denominations.

Can you give me some examples that you consider to be overly strict or oppressive? Or why you would assume that they are?

And I agree that some of those dogmata are beneficial. Pacifism and being apolitical (as a religious group) are dogmata that would fit other denominations well.

I see how other denominations conduct themselves in this area (like the church I was raised in) and I understand when a breach of Christian teaching has been accomplished. You cannot be meddling in politics mainly because of the unseen power who is ruling this world. God's Kingdom is no part of this world. (1 John 5:19; Luke 4:5-6; John 18:36) We consider ourselves citizens of God's Kingdom.

And you cannot do harm to even an enemy because Jesus taught us to "love" them and to "pray" for them. (Matthew 5:43-45) No man creates our beliefs......Jesus does. I can't argue with him because I agree with everything he said.

Some other dogmata are not so nice.

Nice? what is you definition of "not so nice"? Can you provide examples of what you consider "not so nice" and why you view them that way?

What do you think are the dogmata of JWs and do you think it a good thing to keep them as unquestionable?

I don't question what I find agreement with. Do you? And I just happen to have examined everything I believe at more than a surface level and found them all to be perfectly logical and acceptable and completely explainable according to the Bible's overall message. There is a purpose to everything.

If they are acceptable enough to God for him to include them in his instructions, then after careful examination, taking all things into consideration, I understand them and agree with them.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
We never use the word so it is utterly foreign to me. Since we base all of our beliefs on the Bible, there are only Biblical Laws and principles that we base our belief system on. If you carefully consider these laws and principles you get to understand that morality and adherence to these laws are beneficial. They seldom have negative consequences.



Can you give me some examples that you consider to be overly strict or oppressive? Or why you would assume that they are?
As I already said, I find it useful to exactly know who I'm dealing with when talking to a JW, unlike a "Christian", who may may have all kinds of ideas about his faith and the world. So I do understand that someone who doesn't adhere to all the rules (I'll use this instead of dogmata, though it is not strictly synonymous) is no longer seen as a JW.
And I understand that JW regard themselves as "not of this world" so they don't split their life into religious and secular, thus not wanting people around who are "from this world". But is that enough reason to expel people even from their family?
Nice? what is you definition of "not so nice"? Can you provide examples of what you consider "not so nice" and why you view them that way?
Shunning as explained above.
Rejection of blood transfusions can be a death sentence. (Not all transfusions can be replaced by plasma.)

And rejection of science, especially evolutionary biology. I concur that is only an annoyance and not really harmful. I don't think it should be a rule to reject evolution. It is not essential and really makes you look more crazy than spiritual.
(And I'm not even sure if it is a rule. I just have never met or heard of a JW who accepted evolutionary biology.)

I don't question what I find agreement with. Do you?
Especially that what I (initially) find agreeable. There are quite few things that I no longer question after intense consideration.
And I just happen to have examined everything I believe at more than a surface level and found them all to be perfectly logical and acceptable and completely explainable according to the Bible's overall message. There is a purpose to everything.

If they are acceptable enough to God for him to include them in his instructions, then after careful examination, taking all things into consideration, I understand them and agree with them.
The person who explained evolution to you did a **** poor job.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
As I already said, I find it useful to exactly know who I'm dealing with when talking to a JW, unlike a "Christian", who may may have all kinds of ideas about his faith and the world.

JW’s have very little in common with other “Christians” which becomes obvious when you consider that we do not involve ourselves in the incredibly corrupt business of politics, or when nations declare war. We will not take up arms to kill anyone for any reason. We will not even hold employment that requires us to be armed.

Others who identify as “Christian” as well as their clergy will justify their involvement and participate in what Jesus taught us is really none of our business. A Christian cannot be nationalistic or patriotic to this degree because we see ourselves as citizens of God’s Kingdom, which Jesus said is not part of this world. Having said that, we try to be model citizens of whatever nation we live in. You won’t find JW’s in jail as murderers or thieves. If any JW was to commit such offences, they would cease to be part of our brotherhood by engaging in that sort of conduct. We have strong beliefs, but they will never make us violent or dishonest. Self-control is part of what the Bible promotes.

Jesus taught us to be preachers of the Bible’s peaceful message and to do whatever we can to promote it to those who need to know what God requires of those who will enjoy the benefits of his incoming Kingdom.

So I do understand that someone who doesn't adhere to all the rules (I'll use this instead of dogmata, though it is not strictly synonymous) is no longer seen as a JW.

The very nature of Christianity is divisive....it is supposed to be.
When Jesus returns to judge this world, (which the Bible indicates is not too far away) he will separate the “sheep from the goats”.....everyone living at this time, we believe will already have shown God which category they have placed themselves in. He is their judge, not us. Their choices are theirs to make.

But if we can’t live up to the rules laid down in the Bible for Christ’s followers, thinking that we can make up our own rules, then his judgment will come as a bit of a shock. (Matthew 7:21-23)

And I understand that JW regard themselves as "not of this world" so they don't split their life into religious and secular, thus not wanting people around who are "from this world". But is that enough reason to expel people even from their family?

Shunning as explained above.

We do not seek “friendship with the world” (James 4:4) by dropping our standards to match theirs. That usually means that we seek close friendships with those who share our moral values and our extreme disdain for immorality, drunkenness and violence. That doesn’t mean that we judge them as unworthy of God’s forgiveness, as we will share the Bible’s message with anyone who wants to hear it. Jesus himself demonstrated this. Let the message touch their heart....and change their attitude and then their life.

Do you seek close friendship with those you have nothing in common with?

The unity we enjoy as a global brotherhood, is safeguarded by the fact that we will not tolerate any in our ranks who want to promote their own ideas or their personal interpretation of scripture.
This is entirely based on the first century model and it prevents discord and division. Those who can’t or won’t accept the terms of their inclusion in our brotherhood or who break God’s laws unrepentantly will be expelled....disfellowshipped....excommunicated from our ranks. Some leave of their own volition.....same rules apply. They know this before they make a commitment. We make no apology for following through on these Bible based instructions.

If it affects family members, our loyalty to God comes first. No matter who it is that breaks God’s law, if they have taken the vow that comes with baptism, they will be expelled. If they are minor children, they are not expelled from the family home, but will be excluded from family worship. It is spiritual fellowship that is withdrawn, not normal family care and physical support. Many who are of age make the decision to leave the family home so as to live life as they wish....that is their decision.
All are still free to attend our meetings, but until repentance is demonstrated and a change in attitude is seen, we will not include them in our spiritual activities. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) Those who seek reinstatement and demonstrate their desire by actions, will be welcomed back with open arms. We love it when that happens.

Rejection of blood transfusions can be a death sentence. (Not all transfusions can be replaced by plasma.)

From this comment it is plain that you have no real understanding of this issue, which I have discussed extensively on these forums.

This is a non-issue these days. Not having a blood transfusion is not a death sentence....in fact it is medically accepted now that blood carries more risks than alternative therapies that are way more successful in the treatment of both trauma and surgical patients.

In the following link is a video which was put out by the Australian Government’s Blood Authority.
For Media | National Blood Authority
Please watch it, especially the scan of a patient both before a blood transfusion (with saline plasma volume expander) and after a blood transfusion.
We no longer have to defend our religious position on this subject because it is backed up by world medical experts in this field. It was a sweet vindication of God’s law.

And rejection of science, especially evolutionary biology. I concur that is only an annoyance and not really harmful. I don't think it should be a rule to reject evolution. It is not essential and really makes you look more crazy than spiritual.

We do not reject science...let’s be clear on this. We reject evolution as the sole explanation for how life originated and how it supposedly evolved from a microscopic single cell (which spontaneously popped into existence for no apparent reason) with all the necessary biological functions to eventually become all the lifeforms that have ever existed on this planet.

The fact that this idea is presented as the only explanation for the existence of all life, without anything but the unsubstantiated musings of scientists as a suggestion about how it all supposedly happened, creating a hypothesis that somehow became a fact.....that is what we have a problem with.

I see how much ‘suggestion’ is incorporated into the interpretation of “evidence” and I see a lot of blind acceptance of those suggestions and assertions. That is “faith” and “belief” in action....the very things that evolutionists use against us Bible believers. You have your ‘prophets’ making predictions, and your ‘scripture’ which you hold to be unerring and sacred based on the credentials of those committing them to writing, and you practice your “beliefs” just as zealously as we do. You can see how strongly and passionately those things are defended. What does it matter what we say? It shouldn’t matter if what you believe is true. If we are presenting as “crazy rather than spiritual” then it beggars belief that the response to our expose’ of science’s weak foundations with regard to macro-evolution, would be so voluminous. Not with facts confirming science, but with mostly demeaning comments about our ignorance.

(And I'm not even sure if it is a rule. I just have never met or heard of a JW who accepted evolutionary biology.)

I hope you understand that what science can actually prove, we don’t deny. Why would we? Adaptation is seen in laboratory experiments, demonstrating the amazing ability, programmed into all living things, to ensure survival of their “kind” as well as a producing wonderful variety within any family of creatures. To take that beyond what science can confirm and then promoting it as fact, is concerning. It seems as if science is promoting the idea that “if a little is good, a lot must be better”......that is hardly scientific in its approach, but to me is a deception of magnitude, especially to young students who are not taught to question the validity of the whole theory because they are already convinced that it is an absolute fact. I know it isn’t....so I am going to expose that truth.

Especially that what I (initially) find agreeable. There are quite few things that I no longer question after intense consideration.

Me too. I have been on both sides of this fence and God came up as the logical winner for me. But I am a spiritual person and the spiritual aspects of creation fill a void in me that you may not have. We are who we are.

The person who explained evolution to you did a **** poor job.

I have based my conclusions on the articles that have been provided online from the institutions who teach evolution to their students. And there is also links that have been provide here as well. Perhaps you need to point your finger at them. I read these things through a different lens. It just depends on the glasses I guess.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
We do not reject science...let’s be clear on this. We reject evolution as the sole explanation for how life originated and how it supposedly evolved from a microscopic single cell (which spontaneously popped into existence for no apparent reason) with all the necessary biological functions to eventually become all the lifeforms that have ever existed on this planet.
It still isn't clear for me what exactly your position is. (But we should discuss that in an Evolution vs. Creationism thread.)
I also don't know if it is a rule for JW to believe in creationism and if so, how that rule is formulated and what you think about making such a belief a rule. (That would fit into this debate.)
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Addendum

To specify the debate, I like to distinguish between three kinds of dogmata:

1. Spiritual
These are beliefs to be hold about concepts of the religion like sin, karma or the personified existence of evil.
2. Ethically
These are rules about behaviour towards the godhead and the community.
3. Factual
These are assertions about the physical world.

The last one is the most controversial though it shouldn't be. There should be no religious dogma about what we can clearly perceive or measure. It is also the one that historically did the most damage to the religions who held to such dogma. It was what got Galilei into house detention and Bruno burned at the stake - and the RCC to have to beg forgiveness.
 
Top