Printable View
Okay ladies.... Can we change the topic? I have another question to ask, which i have been meaning to ask for ages, but i thought it might offend people. If you are offended...i am deeply sorry.
Muhammed (PBUH) died of natural causes (old age). Muhammed (M) battled in many holy wars during his life, and all his followers protected him. I just wanted to ask, why didn't Jesus' followers stand up for him and allowed him to be crucified?
The simplistic answer is that if Jesus wasn't cricified, then he would not have been able to rise from the dead.
I guess there's so many questions on that topic and I guess the simple answer is that it was necessary to fulfill God's plan.
When Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane one of the disciples picked up a sword and chopped off the ear of one of the soldiers - Jesus told him to put the sword away. The relevant passage in the bible if you want to look it up is found in Matthew 26.
BW
actually TD they did!
Matthew 26:50-54 in the bible says -
50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
and also in Luke 22
49When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
oops - was typing as BW posted!!
One thing you may not understand about Jesus is that before he was a man, he was a heavenly angel....Gods foremost angel....Gods first created being. From heaven, God sent Jesus to earth to be born as a man in order to sacrifice himself.:
His sole purpose was to die for the sins of mankind so that mankind could be reunited with God. So, Jesus would not have wanted his followers to try and save him, rather he allowed himself to be unjustly convicted of a crime he did not commit in order to achieve his purpose.
This is why christians are told that thru their faith in Jesus sacrifice, they can gain salvation. That salvation is spoken about by Mohammad, you would know of it as 'paradise' The bible also speaks of it as a paradise, but one that will be established right here on earth by Gods doing.
Fair question TD :)
At the time, I guess they just weren't strong enough in their belief that he was the Messiah. Don't forget, for many years they had been 'shepherded' by spiritual leaders who placed more importance on position and status than the spiritual needs of the people. When Jesus came, he displayed them as the power hungry, selfish men they were, and they didn't like it. By this time they had such a strong hold on the people that it wouldn't have taken much to turn a crowd against him. I believe that the people who follow the Jewish faith today don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the account of the Hebrews leaving Egypt, but even after witnessing the 10 plagues, as well as the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, the Hebrews still continued to forget Jehovah, which is why He ended up leaving them. So instead of having the fleshly nation of Israel, He instituted the spiritual Israel, and this time only those who chose it became His.
But long story short, what BW said :)
TD - recommend the dvd or book
"The Case for Christ" - Lee Strobel
Hey TD, what are you doing, I've only just joined this thread and now it's gone way off where I was at... and I hadn't finished. :p :lol:
What I really want to say is, what I find so puzzling, as a scientist, is that science keeps getting drawn into all this religion stuff. Like I said, as a scientist, out in the field, in the practical application of our knowledge, based on Darwin's theory of evolution, religion doesn't even enter into it. It is completely irrelevant. There are no "alternative" ideas. Science is science and religion is religion. Science is absolutely not a form of religion, it's science.
I think atheists (which I guess I am calling a type of religion) in their arguments with religion have used science to counter creationism (and other ideas of that sort). And of course I am totally opposed to the teaching of creationism in science, it's not science it's religion. I am passionate about freedom of religion, by all means teach and believe whatever you want to believe, I fully support your in that (unless you're a destructive cult, but that's another thread).... in religion. But any religious teachings, in my humble but very passionate opinion, have no place in science.
Oh OK, I just thought I'd add, I had a quick conservation with DH, who is also a scientist/ecologist (see I do live and breathe this stuff all day every day :lol: )and he doesn't agree with me on this at all... so just reiterating again, this is just my personal opinion. :hug:
Rachel with the whole Science is Science and Religion is Religion thing - my faith is sort of different to that. It's more a world view. My faith in God is how I understand the world. It's not something I DO, it's how I think and see things, my context. So I learn about science, but always God is my context.
No idea if that makes sense. It's late at night after a long day. :lol:
Peg - your statement that Jesus was an angel gets me curious - what do you base that on?
And TD, cool question, but probably the others have basically covered it - Jesus needed to die, if he was going to pay the punishment for sin (which is what the bible teaches happened). Plus I like the idea that his followers were very human - they were afraid of dying too. Would I have stood up for Jesus if I might have died...I'm not sure. Certainly afterwards many of Jesus' disciples ended up dying because of what they shared about him. But it gives me encouragement that I can chicken/freak out sometimes and still go on to do good stuff. :lol:
I'm with Nelle on the worldview - faith is life. What I believe about God and the Bible inpacts the way I live and the way I think about everything. And really, evolutionary science works the same way. If you believe that life evolved and that humans are "high apes", it impacts the way you think about the world and everything else in life. Is human life sacred? Is there absolute truth? The answers to these and other questions have their root in your belief about the origins of life and the existance of God.
To return to the evolution thing briefly - development and speciallization within a species is evident. I'm not denying that. However, when these things happen, information is LOST. New information is not created. Diversity was possible within the genetic code of the creature, and due to environmental circumstances, individual animals with certain traits had the advantage over others, and so that trait became dominant, and the other genetic information was lost over time, or preserved in another variety of that species, living in different circumstances. I believe this is sometimes called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, in which fish become birds, for example, and new genetic information is created, is an entirely different thing, and that is what evolution is based on. I do not believe this ever happened.
As a bit of an aside, when the man who was responsible for some of the work of mapping DNA received his Nobel prize, he was asked by a reporter "Knowing what you do about DNA, where do you think life came from? Did we evolve?" His answer was something to the effect of "Aliens must have come and planted seeds of life on our planet. This could not evolve by chance." So, he was unwilling to acknowledge a creator, but he could not accept evolution either. Scientists who hint that they believe in a creator are ridiculed by their peers, and any "non-evolutionary" theory of the origin of life receives no respect and no funding. (Google "expelled: no intelligence allowed") So any other perspective is generally not heard.
About Jesus' disciples allowing him to be crucified - it's a sad illustration of human nature. We're weak people. Peter thought he could stand - he promised he would stand and die with Jesus, but when it came to the crucial moment, he fell. He denied that he even knew Jesus. Later, though, he was able to stand and preach about Jesus to hostile crowds, through the strength that God gave him. He did later die for his faith. And, as others have said, it is encouraging to me that God still calls us to follow him despite our weakness, and can still use us to serve him.
About Jesus being an angel - I believe that is the Jehovah's Witness position? I would say that Hebrews demonstrates pretty clearly that Christ is more powerful and higher than an angel. The Bible says Christ was "in very nature, God."
The whole person of who Jesus is and our relationship with him is the big sticking point on why I am not converting to the JWs! I believe that Jesus is the Son of God - he is light from light and true God from true God. An angel, even an archangel, is less than that. So therefore how could Jesus be who the Bible claims he is if he's just a mere angel?
And anyone who says Richard Dawkins hasn't turned evolution into a religion obviously hasn't read those books of his! I can see fanaticism on both sides of the argument from various people and that's why I'll defend the other side to the hilt. Personally, I can doubt carbon dated (and always have; radioactive decay isn't the greatest way to date something) and exactly HOW and WHY any amoeba would think going multicellular was a good idea, as it were - but then again, I can see how evolution happens once you do have multicellular organisms. I can see how the heart evolved. How lungs evolved. How the circulatory system happened is awesome and wonderful and that's another thing I can't see happening without God, even if I can see some of the steps.
It's a fascinating and interesting study, but I just can't believe that we started from goo with NO extra help. That just seems crazy.
I know this idea sounds strange, its bascially because we dont believe that Jesus is God. We believe that he is what he said he is...a Son of God.:
I know there are differing beliefs about what angels are. If you look at the Hebrew and Greek words translated 'angel' (Heb. malakh/Gr.aggelos) they both mean “messenger.” The scriptures show that in heaven, there are myriads of angels and they are all called the 'sons of God' They are in the same spirit form as God and they work in harmony with Gods will as shown in
Psalm 103:20*"Bless Jehovah, O YOU angels of his, mighty in power, carrying out his word, By listening to the voice of his word.
21*Bless Jehovah, all YOU armies of his, You ministers of his, doing his will"
&
Job 38:7*"When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause? (the LXX translates the 'sons of God' as 'bands of angels' in this verse)
So an Angel is a spirit son of God who works in harmony with Gods will.
Could we say that Jesus filled that description? Yes we can. He himself said that he had come to do the will of God, and we know that he lived as a spirit in heaven before he came to earth because John said of him "the Word was with God" in John 1:1.
Thats the first line of reasoning. But a second has to do with the identity of 'Micheal the Arch Angel'
Because of Jesus position being highest in both earth and heaven, we believe that this Micheal is actually Jesus in his heavenly role. The term 'Arch Angel' actually means the highest in authority or the 'first and foremost'. In terms of the heavenly 'sons' of God, only Jesus could be the first and foremost.
Also this angel is said to be the leader of all the angels in heaven, he is also spoken of as the one who defeated Gods enemy Satan in when he used his authority to cleans the heavens of Satan.
Revelation 12: 7*And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha‧el and his angels battled with the dragon...9*So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, ..10*And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ"
and in 1Thess 4:16 it says:
"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice..."
So there is scriptual justification in identifying Jesus as Micheal the Arch Angel.
I hope i've made this clear and not too confusing...i tend to be like a dog chasing my tail at times :doh:
Thats completely understandable. We've been told for so long that Jesus is God, why should we doubt it. This issue is what originally divided the early church into two opposing groups. So i understand your position.:
But there really are scriptural reasons to at least consider the possibility. For instance, Micheal the Arch Angel is said to be the one who defeated Satan and his demons from the heavens in Revelation 12:7. Jesus wasnt mentioned there even though it was said prophetically of Jesus at
Psalm 110:1, 2: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, saying: ‘Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.’”
We know that it is Jesus who sits at Gods right hand. And according to Jesus, he also is the one commissioned to act on Gods behalf. Only the Lamb/Jesus is said to be crowned as the one who leads the angels to defeat Gods enemies at
Rev 6:1-2 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice as of thunder: “Come!” 2*And I saw, and, look! a white horse; and the one seated upon it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went forth conquering and to complete his conquest
Also he said this himself:
Matt 24:30*And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory
We have to honestly ask, if Jesus is NOT the arch angel, then why is the archangel performing the tasks that were assigned to the savior Jesus Christ?
Its a question worth thinking about at lease.
OK so it's my turn to crack open the please, please understand, I am not trying to be deliberately argumentative, I am genuinely interested in having a conversation, so I can increase the depth of my understanding and compassion and consideration for all. :hug:
I am really unsure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive, you just can't be both?:
Again, I really have no idea what you mean? You don't have to be religious AT ALL to value the sanctity of human life? And truth? And just because you are a Christian, it doesn't mean you a "good" person, likewise, not all atheists are evil? :p:
I just wanted to say that this is not scientifically correct and not the experience that I have, as a scientist, working with endangered species, populations and ecological communities out in the field. I am not some boffin in a lab mixing brightly coloured liquids together. I am out there in the bush formulating and implementing rehabilitation plans, counting and collecting (with the appropriate licenses of course) making sure these species are preserved for posterity (as dead samples in a herbarium) because they are on the brink of extinction. I hope so much that I don't see it (extinction) in my lifetime, but unfortunately I fear I will. :(:
I totally agree, atheists can be just as fundamental as any fundamentalists from any religion.:
Also, I think you are all well aware now that I hold Darwin and his wako theory very close to my heart and soul. How would you feel if I said: "Believing in God (or insert you chosen spiritual being here) just seems crazy." And please know that I am posing this question (how would you feel?) in an effort to evoke some sensitivity and compassion, seeing as this is in the general religion section and not in the Christianity section. I would NEVER actually say that to anyone about what they believe. :hug::
And JIC you're worrying about me and how I'm feeling, I'm fine, really, I'm just asking. :hug:
If thats whats stopping you LZ, prepare to get baptised :rofl::
We don't worship Jesus as a God - he even told the Jews several times that his power came, not from himself, but from 'Him that sent me', being Jehovah. However, we do hold him in higher regard than your run of the mill angel, because Jesus was the first. Jesus was the ONLY thing Jehovah created by himself - everything else was done with Jesus' help. Jesus is to be a ruler, as we see in Revelation, because the 144,000 will 'rule as kings and priests with him'. No other angel has that privilege, because there is no-one higher than Jesus, except Jehovah.
Is that how its been explained to you before, or have I confused the situation?
Epacris - well said, we should show you the same understanding you've shown us :hug: I'm sure the Bible must seem like science fiction to people who don't believe it!
Hmmm.... having some trouble with the quote thing here. Hope it's still sort of understandable!
"I am really unsure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive, you just can't be both?"
No, what I am saying is that my faith is the way I look at everything in life. It is the foundation. It determines truth in every area. So, if I have a belief based on the Bible, which is in conflict with what a scientist or whoever else is telling me, I will stick with the Bible. I believe that the Bible contains the real truth, and that "true" science will never contradict it. God wrote the Bible, and God made the world. There can be no contradictions.
"Again, I really have no idea what you mean? You don't have to be religious AT ALL to value the sanctity of human life? And truth? And just because you are a Christian, it doesn't mean you a "good" person, likewise, not all atheists are evil?"
No, I did not intend to imply that atheists were evil or did not value human life. What I am saying is that my morals are a part of my world view, based on the Bible. I find the answer to life's questions, and the meaning for my life there. I know Who made me, why I am here, and where I am going. This is all a part of my faith in God. It is all a part of my belief that the Bible contains absolute truth. It has nothing to do with my believing that I am a good person or not. I know I'm not a good person. (The Bible also tells me that, very clearly, and to a point that I would prefer to deny.) I am saying that I value human life because God made it. He gives life, and he can take it - no one else. Science, ethics, politics, finance,..... etc - they are all woven together in life, and the "glasses" through which I view them all is the Bible. You also have a world view, by which you make your decisions - your value system. It will influence your view of everything in life, from science to whatever.
"I just wanted to say that this is not scientifically correct and not the experience that I have, as a scientist, working with endangered species, populations and ecological communities out in the field. I am not some boffin in a lab mixing brightly coloured liquids together. I am out there in the bush formulating and implementing rehabilitation plans, counting and collecting (with the appropriate licenses of course) making sure these species are preserved for posterity (as dead samples in a herbarium) because they are on the brink of extinction. I hope so much that I don't see it (extinction) in my lifetime, but unfortunately I fear I will. "
I said that one "kind" of animals (say, reptiles) has never evolved into another "kind" (say, birds.) You say that you have a different experience? I'd like to see or hear of a proven example. I believe that God created a number of genetically diverse creatures in the beginning, each according to it's kind. These creatures "evolved" if you will, into the wide variety of individual creatures we have today, each suited to it's environment - something like the billions of people in the world today, all with their own features and characteristics, each came from the original two created humans. This happened over a matter of thousands of years, not millions.
"Also, I think you are all well aware now that I hold Darwin and his wako theory very close to my heart and soul. How would you feel if I said: "Believing in God (or insert you chosen spiritual being here) just seems crazy." And please know that I am posing this question (how would you feel?) in an effort to evoke some sensitivity and compassion, seeing as this is in the general religion section and not in the Christianity section. I would NEVER actually say that to anyone about what they believe."
I'm sorry that you are feeling attacked by some of the comments in the thread, Epacris. It certainly isn't my intention to attack you. :hug:
About Jesus being an angel.....
Hebrews 1:
- "For to which of the angels did God ever say 'You are my Son, today I have become your Father'?"
- "When God brings his firstborn into the world, he says 'Let all God's angels worship him'"
- "But about the Son he says 'Your throne, O GOD, will last forever and ever....'"
Isaiah 9:
- For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given..... And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
John 1:
- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God."
Phillipians 2:
- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who being in very nature, God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, and being made in human likeness. And, being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross."
When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about his authority, he told them that "Before Abraham was, I AM" and they picked up stones to stone him, because they knew and understood that he was claiming God's covenant name "I AM" for himself.
Revelation 1:
"'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God...... And when I turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man......and he said "'Do not be afraid, I am the first and the last....'" They make the same claims about who they are - both are eternal.
Revelation 19:
- "Then the angel said to me 'Write" Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb.....' and I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you..... Worship God!'" and we also see in Revelation 5 (among other places) all of heaven worshippingthe Lamb - Jesus Christ. He is worshipped as God, and if he isn't God, this is blasphemy.
Just questioning Cricket, are you saying that those who don't believe in the Trinity doctrine are blasphemous? As a JW I don't believe in the Trinity, and I can also quote scriptures supporting my belief, but I would never call anyone who does believe it blasphemous :hug:
Of course, if I've misinterpreted your post just let me know :)
What I'm trying to say, is that if someone worships anything or anyone other than God, the Bible calls that blasphemy, or idolatry. We may only worship God (first and second commandments, and many other texts). So if we're going to worship Jesus (and the Bible says we should!), he must be God, IMO. Not trying to offend anyone here, just saying what the Bible says.
This discussion is so interesting and shows that even interpretations of the bible can vary greatly. I think it is better to see all information as subjective and debatable rather than absolute truth, just as this thread demonstrates both science and the bible are debatable. This thread proves there is no absolute truth, but the only information that is 'most true' or suited to each individual and culture.
Arcadia, if there's no absolute truth, then my whole way of living is pointless, and every moment I've spent believing in God is a waste of time. I don't think I can make something true or untrue just by having an opinion on it. Anything's debatable, but I think the point of the debate is to get to the truth.
I know not everyone believes in absolute truth, but for me, if there's no absolute truth then my faith in an absolutely true God doesn't make much sense.
We all disagree, but I think many of us have come to terms with the fact that someone is wrong. And we have respectful discussion within that understanding. I mean - it's fine to say that something is 'most true' for people, but at the end of the day, when it comes to me and a Jewish or Muslim or Athiest friend - only one of us will be right - because of what our faiths are based on. Either there is a God or there's not. Either Jesus is God or he's not. He can't be God for me and not exist for someone else. It sounds like an aggressive point of view, but it's just matter of fact to me. If someone else is right, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then someone else is wrong. I've heard about many paths to the same God, but given that many faiths don't subscribe to that theory - even if many paths is right, that would make the faith wrong.
I love that we can have kind and respectful discussion in here. I love our community for that. I think we're all searching for the truth, but I don't think we're all right. xo
:yeahthat:
I agree absolutely Nelle - SO well put :clap:
:yeahthat: Great post, Nelle. Thanks so much for putting that out there.
Have to agree with Nelle and everyone else. There IS an absolute truth, we may not necessarily know all of it, but it is there.
I like that we can discuss and compare our truths respectfully. It's not often that it is possible to do so.
BW
This reminds me of a particular Rowan Atkinson skit where he is welcoming people to Hell, but I will keep the details of that one to myself ;). But along these lines, because there can only logically be the conclusion that someone must be wrong, then surely any moral arguments which are based on religious teachings must be discounted? Surely only secular, logical "harm-based" analyses are the only ones capable of withstanding scrutiny? For example, if you say abortion is wrong because God says so, but it later transpires that there is no God, then the previous argument is invalid. In which case you would have to rely on an analysis of abortion which does not rely on religion. I know this is a bit OT, but this whole thread seems to be.....:
We all disagree, but I think many of us have come to terms with the fact that someone is wrong. And we have respectful discussion within that understanding. I mean - it's fine to say that something is 'most true' for people, but at the end of the day, when it comes to me and a Jewish or Muslim or Athiest friend - only one of us will be right - because of what our faiths are based on. Either there is a God or there's not. Either Jesus is God or he's not. He can't be God for me and not exist for someone else. It sounds like an aggressive point of view, but it's just matter of fact to me. If someone else is right, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then someone else is wrong. I've heard about many paths to the same God, but given that many faiths don't subscribe to that theory - even if many paths is right, that would make the faith wrong
(I must disclose my athesim in all fairness but I don't think this detracts form my point. I support people having their own religious beliefs but reject strongly any suggestion that a person's religious stance gives them the right to dictate issues of morality and how that impinges on my own decisions.)
Well, I'm gunna keep it simple and just answer the original question. I believe in the evolution theory :-) although I'd like to hope there is more out there and that there is something after this life.
Thanks for the great post Nelle, and I think we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer to see everyone opinion as 'right', albeit in their own way, rather than there being a right and wrong. I think I prefer shades of grey.
For me, to say there is an absolute truth implies there is no room for change and interpretation, and for me this is impossible and is against the very grain of our experiences as growing, changing creatures. I know many of you believe in a predetermined path, so I can see how this is a moot point, because we only change according to gods will...
I believe life would be simpler for me if I could follow Christianity...but it wasn't for me.
:grouphug: to anyone I may have offended. I love being able to share these thoughts in such an open environment.
[qs=Cricket]What I'm trying to say, is that if someone worships anything or anyone other than God, the Bible calls that blasphemy, or idolatry. [/qs]
Hi Cricket, I just wanted to say that you've made a very important point about Christian worship. Its for this very reason that we take the trinity doctrine very seriously because what the trinity doctrine does is introduce 3 'individuals' all worthy of worship....yet, as you've stated, only God is to be worshiped.
A lot of people think the same way as you do which is why they studied the trinity doctrine, turned it inside out and upside down in order to determine if worshiping a trinity is contrary to what we know God requires....that is to worship him alone. The early christian church became divided over this very issue because when the trinity was introduced, it was not based on any of the NT writings....it was based on pagan religions. And the fact is that worshiping a trinity IS in direct contradiction to what God requires which is why many reject it. However, this does not mean that we do not view Jesus as our Lord and King. We certainly do. The thing is that he is only our Lord and King because Jehovah has placed him in that position in order to redeem us from sin and death. Knowing that means we continue to worship God alone and thus avoid breaking the command to worship God alone.
The end result of Jesus kingship is explained for us by the Apostle Paul and he clearly shows that there will come a time when Jesus will relinquish his position as our Lord in order for mankind to be reunited with God the Father.
1Cor 15:24 "Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25*For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26*As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27*For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28*But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone"
Jesus whole purpose is to reunite mankind with God the Father. If we are not worshiping God the Father, then we are missing the whole point of what Jesus is trying to accomplish.
I wonder if it's worth a thread figuring out the differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and (I dunno what to call it) - mainstream Christianity? I'd love to learn more, but I think it is a conversation that deviates off the path of TD's questions. Is anyone interested?
I would be very interested in a thread about the differences between JW's and other Christianity
i'd be happy to contribute to a thread about jw's beliefs and how they differ from the mainstream.
There was a thread about this not too long ago - let me look it up when I get home and I'll post the link, rather than starting a new one :)
And Peg, I gotta spread the love apparently, but thanks for explaining that so well, I certainly wouldn't have made as much sense!
thanks, i just hope it was clear to everyone else lol:
Hi Cricket, thanks for your detailed response. :hug:
I mostly have a problem with what you have written here:
This may be what you believe but it is not scientifically correct. New genetic information is created all the time in all sorts of different ways but mostly though recombination via sexual reproduction and mutation. Also, scientifically one species doesn’t turn into another one, they evolve from a common ancestor. As a scientist, I think you are misrepresenting science to describe it as you have. If you want to believe that that’s what happens, that’s fine, but I wanted to correct the record for science.:
Of course I am not going to be able to show you the formation of a new species but I suspect that even if I could, you won’t believe it anyway, because you’re just not ever going to, that’s just not who you are. The scientific evidence that I have studied and see in the field is more than enough "proof" for me.
No, no, not all, I am sorry if I have given that impression (surely I didn’t :redface: ). But I was hurt by a careless choice of words. It is a very short shuffle from saying "what you believe in is crazy" to "you are crazy" and I know I most certainly am not. :lol::
I found it! This was started as a question thread about certain beliefs of JW's, so feel free to put any questions in there, no matter how dumb you think they might be (they're not dumb!), and we can have a good 'ole discussion :)