R3fr:

No, those sites aren't sponsored by the Watchtower organization. I wouldn't send people to a church-run site to show them alternative points of view. Again, don't misunderstand. I don't find your belief about transfusions stupid, but I do in some cases I find the practice criminal when it allows the suffering and death of another person.

You said, re Job: I see no romanticism about that account... I see it as evil. Not good. Bad. Wrong.

So, we can say that if someone allows something that could be prevented to happen another person, it would be 'wrong'? According to the the story itself ( KJV http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2079883 ), God said:

"Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand."

Then you think Job was done a disservice when God allowed the destruction of his family to prove a point? That would be bordering on the apostate, wouldn't it? As for Job, doesn't he get another family, and all his possessions and riches back, tenfold? He turned a profit, right? ( pun intended? you decide. )

Allowing people to die to hold to a principle isn't right then? I don't think so, personally. I had honestly expected a different perspective on Job from you.

[Message Edited]

I was brought up Luthren..

Saturday nights were Hell..My dads night to drink a bit too much & torment my mother. The next day...We'd all put on our Sunday best and go to church. I use to pray that my father would just...die.

blah...



[Message Edited]

ummm not to nit pick on anything r3fr, but if a transfusion happens to be the only option what happens then?

What if your on the operating table? What if the other methods do not work for you?


I could nit pick other areas but that one seemed the most 'nit pick-e-ish'.




I have a few friends who are JW and as cool as some parts of being a JW is, I don't understand others. In fact those 'others' seem to be control factors like if you do this then you not a JW anymore or if you do that your not a JW anymore.


Its sounds as if JW is a special club of Christians who agree to do things this way as opposed to other ways.


To me this is a classic example of how the Bible can spur different opinions, ideals and beliefs. Science is better, such that it is open for discussion and usually is backed up by multiple different sources; doesn't mean it right but it is not as open to skepticism because of that feature.


Faith and beliefs has far more to offer then what science has to offer; imagination, possibilities, maybe even a purpose. Sometimes I think science is just a way to find out more about the Universe created/evolved. (I think created then evolved into its current form but I really have no idea)

when did hell first show it's head in the bible, for that matter when did Satan?

I think hell is in 'the back of the book' and that evil dude is in the beginning (Genesis)


Personally I think Hell is really not a place, it is in fact a distance. This distance is how far your away from God. Your so far away, so unwanted that in fact this is what it feels like; Hell.

No people poking you or extreme heat or cold, its just that fact that your unwanted and are so distant from God that you feel like crap.

If anyone suffered from depression you will know that the body can go through fits of temperature and loneliness. Hell is a distance from God and the lack of love forthwith.

Jehovah's Witnesses is considered by the Baptist faith as a cult. So too, do Catholic and a few other denominations under Christianity; all apparently read the same Bible I read.In fact some more "popular" religions call each other false in one way or another and say that they are twisting the Lords words.Strangely enough, all this comes from the same Bible. - joetheblow No, not all of todays religions teach from the Bible. As our friend Baker said; "Oddly enough most religious people's idea of satan and hell are copied from Milton."False religion is soon to be done away with. -r3fr

No to which one? Baptist and Cathlics and other denominations thinking that JW is a cult is true.

"Popular" by which I ment the different persuations of Christianity.

I am pretty sure all those religions feel that they are teaching from the Bible. Lots of verses, usage and what not. Of course then they have Elders with there own veiws of which way to go about things.



I just don't know... Not eating Pork... not having to go to church... door to door... roseries... baptism... cremation... no make-up... beards... Jihads... crusades... beating kids with branches from trees... spinning aroung really fast... there seems to be no end.

And if all these twists and turns are being caused be the ultimate bad guy then how do we humans get to the right path??????


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

I'm just going to stick with my personal path. While groups can solve problems better there is a danger of Group Think where all agree to something when there actually can be opposing veiws.

Humans and Lemings have that problem of going along with the crowd. On 9/11 the Brooklyn Bridge began to sway very much mostly because people began walking in insinc.

I'll just try the best that I can and hope it is enough. Do research, take a look at other religions point of veiw, faiths and beliefs, look at the real world and my life.






Sooooo which one is it evolution or creation??????

Where is paxx????

He is lurking around here somewhere.

I thought I would add this:

If we are going to talk about evolution than what about Mutation?

Someone stated either that trees and animals and plants evolve to deal with new dangers.

I don't think they evolve. I think they mutate.

Kona, they're basically the same thing. The only difference is that mutation is random and evolution is to deal with changes in the environment.

I would have to diagree.

Here is a good example:
we pollute the air by burning fossil fuels. due to those pollutants, trees and plants unnaturally mutate.

Yes Kona, but they're not changing to compensate for those variations in the atmosphere. They're changing because of them.

How about this one:

Are we the same human beings mentally 2000 years ago that we are today? (no I am not talking about implanting a person born 2000 years ago in today's world)

Would that be called evolution? all the advances we made in technology and human communication?

To put things another way, evolution ocurrs through a process of constant mutation to adapt to new changes in the environment. Mutation is the process of changing and evolution is the process of mutation to deal with environmental changes.
[Message Edited]

Perhaps this is best described through the dictionary definitions of the two words:

mutation n.

1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.

evolution n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2. a) The process of developing. Gradual development.

joetheblow,

In all but the most minor ways, a human being of 2,000 years ago (or even 25,000) is essentially the same as us. They have all the same raw abilities, physical and mental, that we have. This is supported by the archaelogical and anthropoligical evidence (of course, the usual rules about acceptance of evidence applies).

The difference is a matter of knowledge, not ability.

grayhaze,

To elaborate on your definition, mutation is any change to the genotype of an organism (the change can be good or bad). Evolution is the process where a given mutation confers a survival or reproductive advantage for an organism in the given environment, until the environment changes or the next mutation occurs.

The proximate cause of the mutation (radiation, solar energy, pollution, etc.) only has a bearing on evolution where that cause constitutes (or contributes to) the environment within which the organism must succeed.

The rules of fitness to the environment apply, regardless.

Thanks Aleatoric! I'm tired and, despite the concept making sense in my head, the words just didn't want to come out right.

And couldn't matter of knowledge be a advance? A sort of evolution?

Or is that more of a revolution?

Growth of knowledge is a form of evolution in its own context, true.

It isn't biological evolution, however. Biologically, we aren't different in any substantial way from the earliest homo sapiens sapiens.

I tend to look at it as two separate tracks of growth. In one track, we evolve as biological organisms, very slowly because the cycle time is long and the change rate is slow. In the other track, we advance (our knowledge evolves) rapidly, because the cycle time is short and the change rate is rapid.

whatever...JWs/Mormons.. Ya'all are goofy..

We believe we are doing what Jesus commanded Christians to do, which is preach AND teach the word of God. Its what Jesus himself did too.

I'm curious, r3fr....what really goes thru your mind when people slam their doors in your face? It's got to be rough after awhile. Don't you just wanna smack them & call them naughty names?

Not really, you get used to it. No, i've never felt the urge to call them names, but I do think its rude. Since we feel we are spreading Gods word, its not us who they reject, but God.

Amen to that. In my Church both are seen as a cult. And I think they are a cult.

Just curious, but what makes you think we're a cult?

No, those sites aren't sponsored by the Watchtower organization. I wouldn't send people to a church-run site to show them alternative points of view. Again, don't misunderstand. I don't find your belief about transfusions stupid, but I do in some cases I find the practice criminal when it allows the suffering and death of another person. You said, re Job: I see no romanticism about that account... I see it as evil. Not good. Bad. Wrong. So, we can say that if someone allows something that could be prevented to happen another person, it would be 'wrong'? According to the the story itself ( KJV Link ), God said: "Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand." Then you think Job was done a disservice when God allowed the destruction of his family to prove a point? That would be bordering on the apostate, wouldn't it? As for Job, doesn't he get another family, and all his possessions and riches back, tenfold? He turned a profit, right? ( pun intended? you decide. ) Allowing people to die to hold to a principle isn't right then? I don't think so, personally. I had honestly expected a different perspective on Job from you.

Yes, in some cases, but in the case of humans and God, Satan challenged Gods sovereignty. Also, Satan boasted that he could turn all men away from God, even as he did Adam and Eve. Yes, he could turn away even the one of whom God would say: “There is no one like him in the earth,” namely, the patriarch Job.—Job 1:8. So God permitted this test and Job proved Satan a liar. For Jobs loyalty he was rewarded. Job 2:1-4.

Saturday nights were Hell..My dads night to drink a bit too much & torment my mother. The next day...We'd all put on our Sunday best and go to church. I use to pray that my father would just...die. blah...

My father was the sme way, though I don't remember a lot of things because I was very young.. mabye 1 or so. He attended meetings on occasions, but mainly chose to drink some beer with his buddies. Though, he no longer drinks, he goes to NA and AA. Where they say beer is a drug because its addictive, but have no problem with cigarettes or coffee (for a lot of them, not all).

ummm not to nit pick on anything r3fr, but if a transfusion happens to be the only option what happens then?

Yes, there was a time when there were no other choices... to die, or to accept a transfusion. Its their choice to pick whichever. We do carry 'No Blood' cards, though, so if they're not able to speak or something. A baptized witness most likely will no accept blood at any time.

What if your on the operating table? What if the other methods do not work for you?

You choose.

I have a few friends who are JW and as cool as some parts of being a JW is, I don't understand others. In fact those 'others' seem to be control factors like if you do this then you not a JW anymore or if you do that your not a JW anymore. Its sounds as if JW is a special club of Christians who agree to do things this way as opposed to other ways.

To be disfellowshipped, you have to have done something pretty bad. Being disfellowshipped, you can still attend meetings, but won't have many or all the priveledges you once had, but they can be given back to you once you've shown you've repented and want them back. The elders decide when you get them back.

As for you last statement, could you please be more specific? I don't understand that we do things 'this way,' as opposed to other ways.

No to which one? Baptist and Cathlics and other denominations thinking that JW is a cult is true.

You had me confused at first, but I was saying no to all religions are teaching from the Bible.

"Jehovah's Witnesses is considered by the Baptist faith as a cult. So too, do Catholic and a few other denominations under Christianity; all apparently read the same Bible I read.

In fact some more "popular" religions call each other false in one way or another and say that they are twisting the Lords words.


Strangely enough, all this comes from the same Bible."

I just don't know... Not eating Pork... not having to go to church... door to door... roseries... baptism... cremation... no make-up... beards... Jihads... crusades... beating kids with branches from trees... spinning aroung really fast... there seems to be no end.

List goes on and on. My uncle who is of a differnet religion, believes that he shouldn't wear a beard and his wife, my aunt, shouldn't wear makeup (she should ) and I have no idea where they got those ideas. Its our choice to wear a beard, as for makeup, I think all women wear it because we believe we're supposed to look nice during worship.

And if all these twists and turns are being caused be the ultimate bad guy then how do we humans get to the right path??????

Contact your local Kingdom Hall . Prayer to God from the heart. God does answer prayers, too, but they must be from the heart and not repeating the same thing over and over. (Matthew 6:7; James 1:6-8) When in the door-to-door ministry there have been countless accounts of people saying that they've just prayed to God for help and we knock at the door.

How about this one: Are we the same human beings mentally 2000 years ago that we are today? (no I am not talking about implanting a person born 2000 years ago in today's world) Would that be called evolution? all the advances we made in technology and human communication?

Actually, we are. If you look at some of the structures built (some over 2,000 years) such as the pyramids. They show that man were smart, used math, just as we are/do. Well, today we can't even cure the common cold, so I dunno.

To put things another way, evolution ocurrs through a process of constant mutation to adapt to new changes in the environment. Mutation is the process of changing and evolution is the process of mutation to deal with environmental changes.

So what if the environment is completely stable and everything is good. No more mutation and no more evolution?

I see my perception was dead on...

figures..

#914 by Aleatoric - 11/1/2003 7:39:49 PM joetheblow,In all but the most minor ways, a human being of 2,000 years ago (or even 25,000) is essentially the same as us. They have all the same raw abilities, physical and mental, that we have. This is supported by the archaelogical and anthropoligical evidence (of course, the usual rules about acceptance of evidence applies).

yeppers, 5,300 years ago a Man was killed on a mountain side in the Alp's who was found after unusually warm spells which caused excessive melting of the ice. Hence his label "Ice Man"... All but minor features, which are a cross between European and Slavic, he is exactly as we are today. His arrows, part of his bow, his knife and parts of his colorful woven clothing was also found with him. Someone spotted him and reported a lost climber had been found and it was not until after they had removed his body from the ice that trapped parts of him, did they find the things that let them understand he was much older than anyone expected...

It is gaining acceptance that Neanderthal was just as human as modern man, but a different branch. Also that we could have ended up breeding and blending (of course this will just lend a new twist to some thumpers claims of evil, demons, un-pure blood and such I am thinking) and they are seeking to nail down genes which will either prove this out or dismiss it...

neat huh?

soooo shouldn't we have 6 fingers by now???

I here the carrier gene for human hands if 6 fingers while 5 fingers is the 'supressive gene'

I got that from 5th grade science class 12 years ago



So is it true? We will 'evolve' and the dominant gene will give us 6 finger hands?

It would be a pinky pinky finger by the way. Not a new thumb or some large index finger or something.

So now you will have more 'pigies' that will run all the way home.

The magician shows you a ball, moves it from hand to hand, opens his hands, and the ball is gone. He reaches up, and pulls the ball out of your ear. How do you deal with it?

-Accept that he pulled it out of your ear and formulate theories to prove that you are right, basing your life on those theories?

-Refuse to believe he pulled it out of your ear, and formulate theories to refute the existence of any magic, anywhere?

-Ponder the trick, enjoying the show, and live your life happily without defining yourself by the process?

**

The 'vs.' in "Creation Vs. Evolution" requires you have to have some vested interest in the 'correctness' of a particular perspective. An Atheist may argue that they don't believe that the Magician exists at all, but the motivator above is simply 'reality', and the gaps in our model of it.

For biblical literalists, if the literal truth of the Bible doesn't pan out, then they lose their model of reality altogether. The authoritative structure would fall to pieces, since their authority is based upon their interpretation of the Word. For r3fr, the smallest difference in scriptural interpretation turns bloodless 'devotion' into suicide or murder. A great deal hinges on paper, ink and interpretation.

Atheism refuses to accept the *possibility* of a Creator, ignoring the constant revision of the scientific model of reality. Atheistic culture tends to define religion with caricature; Jimmy Swaggart, radical Islam, the Spanish Inquisition, etc, as if any amount of faith makes you susceptible to any abusive extreme. The vain, convoluted idea of "Brights" makes Atheism fashionable. This view ignores the billions of people, "scientists" included, with moderate beliefs that enrich their lives.

A strict adherence to an inflexible model of reality has been a debilitating factor throughout history, both religiously and scientifically. Religious bigotry is no more destructive than intellectual inflexibility; examples pervade the history of science. Today's 'reason' is so often yesterday's intellectual vanity; pig-headedness. Medieval Catholics tortured Jews, Nazi scientists experimented on them with the same results. Their impassive, inflexible, and incorrect model of reality defined them instead of their humanity.

That is my take on it... again. It'll probably get lost about 20 pages from now, and I'll be dippy enough to come back and reiterate it a dozen times, but for now I have devoted too much of my keyboard's longevity to reiteration. Feel free to bash each other over the head with supposition, but please try and see that supposition is what it is all about, even for "Brights".

Folks
I read all comments..........actually I believe that God Made Us and Made the whole universe......He Gave us the power to think, to act and to learn......

Let suppose that V R EVOLVED NOT CREATED THEN ONE PROBLEM ARRISED "THE FOSSIL RECORD"

When Darwin put forward his theory, palaeontologists opposed him the most. They knew that the "intermediary transitional forms" which Darwin imagined to have existed, never existed in reality. Darwin was hoping that this problem would be overcome by new fossil findings. Palaeontology, on the contrary, invalidated Darwin's theory more and more each day.


Take a look at this great site for answering the questions and querries
http://www.harunyahya.com

IF EVLUATION IS FACT then why humen have same 2 hands, 2 foot, one head and 2 eyez.......y they have not "evolved" into something else with 2 heads or wings or something like this
EVALUATION.........has it finished........or??????