Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[Hockeycowboy]

Every one who thinks they know more about genetics than geneticists, geology than geologists, biology than biologists, paleontology than paleontologists, evolution than evolutionary biologists, cosmology more than cosmologists.....

Is there a consensus between all geneticists? There are no geneticists who believe that life, and the many forms of it, were created?
In fact, I know of several who do not support unguided natural methodologies, to the extent that some do.

Do all biologists agree? Nope.

Do all geologists agree? I have books that present more than one side, both explaining reasonable but conflicting theories.

Not all paleontologists believe there was a UCA.

Until there’s a consensus within these fields of study, I will continue to be skeptical of mainstream Points of View.

Humanity sees too much obfuscation, confusion, and downright hatred in all areas of life, both among the religious and secular … something the Bible predicted for our day …that an honest person should begin to wonder “Who or what is behind this persistent disunity?”
Again, the Bible informs us.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So then you must agree that natural mechanisms can indeed generate "complexity".

So, you do agree that life is ‘complex‘?
(You never agreed to that before, that I can recall.)

And no, evolutionary processes can’t “generate”, i.e., create, novel phenotypic complexity… only work with what it’s got.

The experiments involving Drusophila melanogaster, those of E.coli in the decades-long LTEE, etc., all reveal the limits of those mechanisms. Even under lab-controlled conditions, i.e., conditions ideal for evolutionary expedience.

Evolution is great for explaining MRSA, Darwin’s finches, and plant-life adaptations I mentioned in Genesis 1… but not much further has ever been verified.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

“Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?”

I almost missed the irony.

You could ask this statement of just about any other religion, but to apply this to the one group that is known consistently for going door-to-door, witnessing about God’s Kingdom (Matthew 24:14) and unaware of who is on the other side of the door, or how the conversation will develop — this should be in the “jokes” section.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes it is, come for a cuppa anytime. All welcome

Stay well, stay happy and strong in Faith.

Regards Tony

And you’re welcome in my home anytime, my cousin!

(Belated reply, I know, but I mean it.)

 

[Jose Fly]

Is there a consensus between all geneticists? There are no geneticists who believe that life, and the many forms of it, were created?
In fact, I know of several who do not support unguided natural methodologies, to the extent that some do.

Do all biologists agree? Nope.

Do all geologists agree? I have books that present more than one side, both explaining reasonable but conflicting theories.

Not all paleontologists believe there was a UCA.

Until there’s a consensus within these fields of study, I will continue to be skeptical of mainstream Points of View.

Humanity sees too much obfuscation, confusion, and downright hatred in all areas of life, both among the religious and secular … something the Bible predicted for our day …that an honest person should begin to wonder “Who or what is behind this persistent disunity?”
Again, the Bible informs us.

This is precisely the absurdity I'm talking about. You're actually trying to convince me that your position on scientific matters hinges on whether or not there is 100% consensus while being a Jehovah's Witness plays no role at all in your views.

That's absurd on its face.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, you do agree that life is ‘complex‘?
(You never agreed to that before, that I can recall.)

And no, evolutionary processes can’t “generate”, i.e., create, novel phenotypic complexity… only work with what it’s got.

So how did plasmodium acquire its complex life history, if not via evolution?

The experiments involving Drusophila melanogaster, those of E.coli in the decades-long LTEE, etc., all reveal the limits of those mechanisms. Even under lab-controlled conditions, i.e., conditions ideal for evolutionary expedience.

Evolution is great for explaining MRSA, Darwin’s finches, and plant-life adaptations I mentioned in Genesis 1… but not much further has ever been verified.

There's no way I'm going to just go with your mere say-so on matters of science, and especially on evolutionary biology.

 

[Jose Fly]

“Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?”

I almost missed the irony.

You could ask this statement of just about any other religion, but to apply this to the one group that is known consistently for going door-to-door, witnessing about God’s Kingdom (Matthew 24:14) and unaware of who is on the other side of the door, or how the conversation will develop — this should be in the “jokes” section.

You need to appreciate the context of the question. It's specifically about how the Jehovah's Witnesses here pretend as if being a Witness doesn't influence how they view subjects like evolution in any way at all, and when it's proposed that maybe it does, they tend to shut the conversation down.

So let's see if that applies here. Tell me....what would happen if you were to announce to your fellow Witnesses that after study and discussion, you've concluded that all life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, humans and primates share a common evolutionary ancestry, and the Biblical flood wasn't global?

Within the context of your status as a Jehovah's Witness, what would happen next?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You need to appreciate the context of the question. It's specifically about how the Jehovah's Witnesses here pretend as if being a Witness doesn't influence how they view subjects like evolution in any way at all, and when it's proposed that maybe it does, they tend to shut the conversation down.

So let's see if that applies here. Tell me....what would happen if you were to announce to your fellow Witnesses that after study and discussion, you've concluded that all life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, humans and primates share a common evolutionary ancestry, and the Biblical flood wasn't global?

Within the context of your status as a Jehovah's Witness, what would happen next?

You’ve got to be kidding!
I’ve already done much “study and discussion”!

Why do you think I focus, many times, & post on this specific subject of evolution?! For my health?

And I don’t post ‘religious concepts’ as counter arguments on this subject; I use scientific arguments from scientists themselves, (like from Behe, Axe, Meyer, etc.) to try and get you guys to reason on these things! And if not you, there are many others who read these posts, whose thinking faculties might be opened.

Otherwise, you’ll just read stuff that confirms your own bias, accepting it blindly. Without ever a thought if there may be viable, alternate explanations of the evidences.

I’ve taken advantage of examining and studying all sides of the arguments, and I’m aware of the deficiencies. (Oh, i sound like Gerd Müller; I’ve read some of his papers, have you read any?)

Open yourself up to, and reason on, all sides of the issues.

I’m wondering…. Do you really know and understand my views on evolution?

 

[Jose Fly]

You’ve got to be kidding!
I’ve already done much “study and discussion”!

Why do you think I focus, many times, & post on this specific subject of evolution?! For my health?

And I don’t post ‘religious concepts’ as counter arguments on this subject; I use scientific arguments from scientists themselves, (like from Behe, Axe, Meyer, etc.) to try and get you guys to reason on these things! And if not you, there are many others who read these posts, whose thinking faculties might be opened.

Otherwise, you’ll just read stuff that confirms your own bias, accepting it blindly. Without ever a thought if there may be viable, alternate explanations of the evidences.

I’ve taken advantage of examining and studying all sides of the arguments, and I’m aware of the deficiencies. (Oh, i sound like Gerd Müller; I’ve read some of his papers, have you read any?)

Open yourself up to, and reason on, all sides of the issues.

I’m wondering…. Do you really know and understand my views on evolution?

You didn't answer the question I asked. Again....

What would happen if you were to announce to your fellow Witnesses that after study and discussion, you've concluded that all life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, humans and primates share a common evolutionary ancestry, and the Biblical flood wasn't global?

Within the context of your status as a Jehovah's Witness, what would happen next?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You need to appreciate the context of the question. It's specifically about how the Jehovah's Witnesses here pretend as if being a Witness doesn't influence how they view subjects like evolution in any way at all, and when it's proposed that maybe it does, they tend to shut the conversation down.

So let's see if that applies here. Tell me....what would happen if you were to announce to your fellow Witnesses that after study and discussion, you've concluded that all life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, humans and primates share a common evolutionary ancestry, and the Biblical flood wasn't global?

Within the context of your status as a Jehovah's Witness, what would happen next?

I just wanted to add this:
I did my deep study of many issues, religious & secular, before I dedicated my life to Jehovah and got baptized.

And there have been no new discoveries or developments that have altered my understanding of reality.
In fact, if anything, my faith has been reinforced by these new discoveries.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You didn't answer the question I asked. Again....

What would happen if you were to announce to your fellow Witnesses that after study and discussion, you've concluded that all life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, humans and primates share a common evolutionary ancestry, and the Biblical flood wasn't global?

Within the context of your status as a Jehovah's Witness, what would happen next?

Well, first off, they’d laugh. Heartily.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, first off, they’d laugh. Heartily.

Is that it? Nothing else?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you are a ubiquitous Christian perhaps? All-embracing, like Protestant and Catholicism you would go by?

I'm a Christian. You can judge me all you like, but it does not matter to me. I think it is only the judgement of God that matters and not man or some random stranger on an internet forum.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am saying that without God's intervention, things can and do go awry. That's what I am saying.

I think so to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So do you believe that everlasting life is possible, or do you think that the Bible is a book of myths and made-up accounts, as so many do?

I see the Bible as inspired by God and not the dictation of God. Genesis is allegory for instance. I d not consider that is a criteria supporting or reducing my belief or my Christianity.

You are of course free to believe as you choose, but I don't have to agree with it or fear for my spiritual existence for not believing as you do. No where was it written that I have to be a Jehovah's Witness to be a Christian.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is there a consensus between all geneticists? There are no geneticists who believe that life, and the many forms of it, were created?
In fact, I know of several who do not support unguided natural methodologies, to the extent that some do.

Do all biologists agree? Nope.

Do all geologists agree? I have books that present more than one side, both explaining reasonable but conflicting theories.

Not all paleontologists believe there was a UCA.

Until there’s a consensus within these fields of study, I will continue to be skeptical of mainstream Points of View.

Humanity sees too much obfuscation, confusion, and downright hatred in all areas of life, both among the religious and secular … something the Bible predicted for our day …that an honest person should begin to wonder “Who or what is behind this persistent disunity?”
Again, the Bible informs us.

Pretty much, yes. Those that disagree don't have any evidence to back what amounts to belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You’ve got to be kidding!
I’ve already done much “study and discussion”!

Why do you think I focus, many times, & post on this specific subject of evolution?! For my health?

And I don’t post ‘religious concepts’ as counter arguments on this subject; I use scientific arguments from scientists themselves, (like from Behe, Axe, Meyer, etc.) to try and get you guys to reason on these things! And if not you, there are many others who read these posts, whose thinking faculties might be opened.

Otherwise, you’ll just read stuff that confirms your own bias, accepting it blindly. Without ever a thought if there may be viable, alternate explanations of the evidences.

I’ve taken advantage of examining and studying all sides of the arguments, and I’m aware of the deficiencies. (Oh, i sound like Gerd Müller; I’ve read some of his papers, have you read any?)

Open yourself up to, and reason on, all sides of the issues.

I’m wondering…. Do you really know and understand my views on evolution?

But Behe, Axe and Meyer don't have any real arguments based on evidence. They are just going by belief, so how can there be evidence from them for anyone to go on?

 

[Jose Fly]

But Behe, Axe and Meyer don't have any real arguments based on evidence. They are just going by belief, so how can there be evidence from them for anyone to go on?

The irony is, Behe agrees with universal common descent and human/primate common ancestry (he just believes a god intervened now and then). But whenever I bring that up to @Hockeycowboy he tends to avoid it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The irony is, Behe agrees with universal common descent and human/primate common ancestry (he just believes a god intervened now and then). But whenever I bring that up to @Hockeycowboy he tends to avoid it.

I believe these things too, but I know that I do not have evidence to say it is a fact or some sort of scientific principle. To me it means that the story in Genesis is allegorical and that declaring it is literal is man and not God. Without going into long-winded detail, I think most of the dissent against the evidence and the explanations is man's ideological conventions and not based on any sort of sound reasoning or valid interpretation of the evidence. It is arguing about gaps and the minor uncertainty that is an ever-present reality of scientific conclusions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The irony is, Behe agrees with universal common descent and human/primate common ancestry (he just believes a god intervened now and then). But whenever I bring that up to @Hockeycowboy he tends to avoid it.

That is very much the same sort of thing going on elsewhere. The scientists are my best friends when they say something that supports my ideology, but I can ignore them when they say something that doesn't. Just cherry picking.