Hi All:

This is a good article that talks about how "bigotted" the university culture is towards ideas that are currently in the minority. This thinking and "control" certainly spills over into many other topics of course. http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/university-shuts-down-science-class-discussions/

frank

 

I found this article quite interesting. Thanks Frank. I’m surprised and at the same time, not surprised that a professor or science program would state these restrictions, “not to discuss the evidence of intelligent design†and “theory of intelligent designâ€. I’m also curious about this Freedom from Religion Foundation. What do they consider “Religionâ€? Maybe they don’t understand the word religion: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.†Also; from L.Latin from re- "again" + legere "read", see lecture.

Lecture: a speech read or delivered before an audience or class, especially for instruction or to set forth some subject: a lecture on Picasso's paintings.

I always thought that was what education was all about. Is not education about “academic integrity� I guess I was wrong in thinking that it was. Don't you love the title of the organization, Freedom from Religion Foundation?

P.S. An added comment on this statement. "Under the concept of intelligent design, the complexity of observable and testable features in living creatures and nature are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an unguided process such as natural selection." Intelligent cause? First of all "intelligent" requires someone or something to use it. Intelligent: "having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals." So much for intelligent evolution.

 

Hi Tsaphah:

Glad you liked it. This article took me back to my days as a new college student studying Biology in 1973. This was one of those courses that had about 100-150 students in a large lecture hall at one time for each class. My section of Biology was one of three taught that semester, so the total number of students was somewhere between 275 and 400 total in the course of Biology 101.

At that time, one of the professor's was a JW, which I was not as yet. Part (actually about 1/4 of the grade was determined through a independant study portion where students were asked to (by a show of hands) say whether they believed in Evolution's explanation of man's existence or whether they believed in direct creation from God. This was done at the beginning of the course and my estimate was that it was split about 80-85% evolution and 15-20 creation. I was firmly in the evolution camp.

The "brother" who was a professor at the college single-handedly set up the independent study portion of evidence that supported creation and the rest of the Biology staff set up the evolution side of the argument. You not only had to state at the end of the course how you felt
on the issue, but had to write an essay as to why you felt that way and what evidence helped you to come to your conclusions.

At the end of the course, a new survey (by a show of hands was done) and to my surprise the results were just the opposite about 80-85% for creation with the remainder supporting the evolution view. I was stunned personally by the evidence of creation myself which also showed the geologic evidence of the Bible's account of the flood as well.

It is my understanding that about two years after my leaving this college to attend a different university that the course was not taught that way any more. Only the evolution side was presented, at least formally. You see, many "scholastics" as I will call them, only want to hear the opinion that they express and if they can through ridicule or intimidation rid themselves of any intellectual competition they will do so. This course was a real threat to their "religion" of evolution. I am sure that that is the fear on the part of the faculty at most colleges and universities today. There is a herd mentality, and if you do not go along with the herd, you are culled out. Not in all cases, of course but in the ones that are important to the globalist's for sure.

A good example of this thinking in our time is the issue of climate change or anthropomorphic global warming. The proponents of this idea are as irrational about any other alternatives that people in science will lose out on or will not even be considered for research grants unless they go along with the "supposed elites" in the field who express this idea as religious dogma and as fact, when nothing has even close to have been proven either way. Professors have failed to gain tennure and many times are not renewed for going against the main stream, even if they have good reason not to. Isn't that what science is supposed to be? The open discussion and critical examination of ideas, and postulations and theories until such a time that the matter is solved and proven beyond question or dismissed. Many academics do not like competition though and they will use all forms of vile strategies to rid themselves of any competition.

I will say though, that creationists don't do themselves any favors in clinging to models that suggest that the universe and the earth and man on it is only 6,000 years old. I have studied this idea in a good amount of detail (at least from my perspective) and although I am firmly in the creation camp and intelligent design (designer) camp, man has been on planet earth much longer than 6,000 years. Yes, it has been about 6040 years or so since Adam's birth (Tishri 1, 4026/27 BCE to present), but that does not mean that Adam was the first "man" on the planet.

frank

 

"Yes, it has been about 6040 years or so since Adam's birth (Tishri 1, 4026/27 BCE to present), but that does not mean that Adam was the first "man" on the planet."

hi frank

I'm curious why you think there were other humans before Adam?

 

Yeah me too

 

Hi Billy and Thinking:

That is a very good question, but I am not sure that I can answer it on this forum at this time as the answer would not be in harmony with the teachings of the WTBTS and it's glorious Governing Body who have clearly gotten 1914 wrong (not my opinion, but that of the administrators of this forum), but who have generally gotten everything else about the Bible correct (also the opinion of the administrators). Clearly, such an August body would not have missed such an obvious truth, so I must be mistaken in my reasoning and abilities to be led by Holy Spirit in understanding God's Word since I am not one of the proclaimed "annointed". Oh yeah, it's not the "annointed" who are born along by HS but only those self proclaimed "faithful and discrete" that are such. So, you others who claim that you are of Jesus bride, if you are not a member of the GB, your opinion does not count at this time. See the July 15, 2012 Watchtower study articles for divine proof of this statement.

I can explain my reasoning from scripture, but I don't want to stumble anyone from the path of divine truth as laid out by the Golden Calf, I mean Governing Body. What's a poor boy to do?

frank

 

Hi Joshua:

First off, perhaps I did not make myself clear in my initial comment. What I meant was those "young earth" creationists who believe that the earth and man on it is only 6,000 years old. I am fully aware that the vast majority if not all of JW's believe as you that there were creative days prior to the sixth. I was a JW for 30 years and have a pretty good understanding of what JW's in general believe. However, I do not have a degree in Quantum Physics, although I am very aware of what the Bible does and does not say, but I bow down low to your esteemed intelligence and scholarship.

You say that I pride myself in speaking for others but I only claim to speak for myself. It is the GB who claims the ability and God given right to speak for all of JW's worldwide, even for those of you who do have degrees in Quantum Physics, Cosmology etc., and those who claim to be of Christ's bride. I was not aware that I was on a "soap box", I will have to look into that.

Could this be that you are just upset at my satirical approach to my answer to Thinking and Billy because it was a tongue in cheek jab at your administrative comment for the forum? Is that it Joshua? If so, I understand and I apologize if I hurt your feelings, from the bottom of my heart, sorry brother. But, all that said, Adam was not the first man on earth and the Bible says so along with a great deal of archeological and anthropological evidence, which I also do not have a degree in but know a little bit about.

It seams to me that you are standing on your many and various degrees and such that they are forming your very own "soap box".

frank

 

let me be perfectly clear on this one.evolutionists and creation disputers fully know and fully understand that an almighty god created the worlds! they purposefully and out of pure rebellion against God. take psuedoscience and use it to declare that their is no god because they themselves hate god for whatever reason and they want to harm men who are created in gods image..they are exact physical manifestations of their father the devil! and they know it! the devil grants them power and authority to bad mouth god and things that be of him. let us quit pretending that these people are just innocently misguided they are not! it takes great counter intelligence and deliberate malice against the source of life to say and do what they do. and disregard the consequences! God said he made the worlds and when you say different you are calling the Almighty a lier to his face. and the bible says quite specifically that fire,deepest darkness is reseaved for them. repent you who mock Jehovah saying evolution made the world!

 

Hi JIG:

Your so cute when you get riled up!

frank

 

the bible does seem to imply that god made a man to tend the garden then goes on to say let us make man in our image this may or may not refers to their being an other group of man before Adam that god made with the intent of being caretakers of the land Cain went off to dwell in the land of nod.Cain tells his own story in the apocrapha book of Cain were he describes a race under the control of Lilith (Satan's wife,) they are a brutish dark skin race with large sexual organs and the bible specifically makes mention of them quite graphicly and tells gods people not to marry into their race. it is my humble opinion that god created a human group before Adam that was not intended to live eternally nor were they expected to do much more than farm and forage and care for the woodlands this race is discussed in detail by Arnold Murray of Shepard's chapel and I have to go along with the idea that god did make a form of man on the same day as the animals then created Adam latter on with the purpose of being a dominant creature to rule the earth. the legends say that Adam met the Lilith women and while he associated with her for company looked upon her as unfit to breed with this enraged the Lilith women and she told her husband Belial(Baal) Satan how to kill the man by using the women god made for a suitable mate.to disobey God. the whole story of Cains book tells how the cainanite race was the forefathers of shape shifting vampires and other demonic things and how he learned them from the Lilith women.the bible mentions Lilith in one word but gives no explanation of what a Lilith is. anyway Adam and eve were created in gods image with quality's of god and any other race of man that may have existed was not intended to interbreed with the Adams,eloi, or whatever the word is. their is no evolutionary horse poppy involved although parts of the apocra suggest that Belial had limited creative power until Jehovah took it from him for creating half man half beast things that he used as fighting match animals Jehovah said he was cruel which further engraved the angel who finally became the devil

 

Hi Frank,

Actually I have wondered about you for a while frank, if I may be frank.
i really am not sure of your belief system and how different it is to ours here.
tho it does seem a bit too different...but I may be wrong, sorry if I am.

The thing is I probably do need to know as some ex brothers and sisters are traveling down the new age road which I firmly beleive belongs to Satan.
tho it sounds very nice it is satanic. So I guess symbolically I don't want to be holding hands with any one going down that road.
im not saying you ARE I'm just saying I'm WARY.

I do talk to some young kids that were disfellowshipped because they were just kids when baptized and didn't know their left hand from their right.
baptised far too young for such responsibility .

Some have gone out from us as they were not of our sort ( not my words!)

Some we do need to quit mixing with, as the scriptures say.

Yes I do beleive we abuse the disfellowshipping principle laid out in the scriptures and I want no part of that cruelty.

But some are legitimate cases, hence the dilemma .

Personally I always lean to the side of mercy rather heavily.

Even those disfellowshipped genuinely and trying to do the right thing I will always offer encouragement of hang in there.
long isolation of one goes against scripture as Paul stated...as that one may become overly sad.( as a people we shamefully abuse this principle, resulting in I beleive unwarranted spiritual deaths)

So if I may ask how different are you to our belief system, having been a witness for many years I would imagine they should be very close.
i can see you are a studier and a intellectual man, but fortunately for me often that means nothing to Jah.
looking forward to your reply

Sis thinking

 

Hi Jig,

I have read most of the forgotten books, not cains or Judas for obvious reasons.
two untrusty lots of ever their we're ones.
do not trust what you have read in either.
as for Enoch , I liked it and I found it probably had very interesting points, like missing gaps that the bible did not fill in, but I'm a bit wary of all of them.
i know the scriptures to be true and Jah protected these books for us to have, so why not the others.
i still read them from time to time, they are interesting and perhaps of historical value.
but I don't put faith in them if you know what I mean.
im sure there were many writings used back then that we do not know about or appreciate.
it will be interesting to see what is dug up in the future.
a little bit of Enoch was found among the dead sea scrolls.
very interesting indeed.

Sis thinking

 

Hi Sis:

I understand how you feel. No doubt many of the early Christians must have been worried that this new upstart religion (for lack of a better term) was similar to their customary beliefs but just enough "different" to make them wary. When I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses I felt that I had all the truth that was to be had from God's Word. No doubt the Jews felt the same way as they were "Abraham's seed", so what could this new upstart group teach them? I will tell you squarely that there is so much more in the word of God that your wildest imagination would not do it justice. I am not a believer in anything new age. My beliefs and my faith comes directly from God's Word the Bible. But you will have to decide that for yourself.

Here is a link to a good portion of the basic beliefs of the Lords' Witnesses. If you care to read them fine, if you want to pass, that is your prerogative.

http://biblecodeintro.com/ read them in the order they are written and you will have a good summary of what I currently believe. We are constantly upgrading our understandings though as there is just so much info in the Bible that thus far has gone untapped. I hope you enjoy!

frank

 

Will do but have to go to work now and will get back to you

 

Wow frank, what can I say.
tho I never read every single sub heading from that site I did read a fair bit.
satan was the first born, Michael possessed Jesus at his baptism, Jesus had a son.
on death our soul goes into or becomes angelic but our body dies.

I know my sons soul is not now in a angel form.
this is all from Satan Frank.
we could argue with scriptures back and forth but what would be the purpose,
lim sure you would agree to that.
i really do hope you can eventually see this yourself for your own sake.
i wish you the best with this but I also must remain loyal to Jehovah.
i seriously question your validity on being on this forum, why would you even want to be?

i worry that you will have some influence with someone a little shakey or wounded in their faith.
this is a very serious thing, as it says in Revelation some congs put up with false teachings and were found unacceptable to Jehovah.
On a personal level frank I come to this forum as a sister looking for comfort and encouragement to keep enduring, WITHIN GODS ORGANIZATION , so I ask......why are you here?
i have already made sure of these doctrines and teachings, I am steadfast in them.
You have your own church frank, sadly I do not think it is here.

I wish you well frank

Sis thinking

 

Hi Frank,
I started laughing when I read your “herd mentality†because a large group of sheep are called a flock and goats are called a herd. (Mt.25:32-33) I ran into that problem and eventually my conscience got the best of me and I dropped out. This was before I became a JW. I started studying soon after. I went back into engineering. The whole “scholasticâ€, “academia world†is driven by money. That’s where all the “research†projects are initiated. If they tell the truth in their research, the funding drys up and goes away. I’ve worked with enough PhD’s to make me sick. I call them the Mr. Know-it-alls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x20jv8sOIA

As for man’s presence on earth, I see from all the others who replied, it is unnecessary for me to ask any questions that others have already addressed. The “Lord’s Witnesses� Which lord, Lord, LORD, are they representing? (1 Co. 8:5-6) Could it be . . . Satan?

Many say, “according to biblical chronologyâ€, I only have this to ask. Give me an unbroken scriptural link that gives exact unbroken dates, not just years. No missing months. I know how sophists work and their pattern of argument. Philosophy is sophistry, nothing more. Let’s not waste our time arguing about words. Where does the bible call other created hominids by a word that does not refer to humans? Forget about Australopithecus and other modern misidentified types. There are 80 Hebrew word combinations that are used to describe humans, none of them refer to anything other than thinking humans.

Sorry Frank, I don’t have enough life left to waste on some wayward sophist’s ideas that conflict with what I have learned in my lifetime. I'm speaking especially of the Bible. I don’t have time for circular references. This person(s) reasoning has more spin than a Force Ten hurricane.

These should give you a rush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZG3FvjAtJE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOyQhgM1FU

But . . . then again, I’m not the boxer either. I always thought I wanted to be a boxer. Then I got in the ring with a guy who really wanted to be a boxer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nttdcOWizX4

 

The opinion of the administrators of this forum is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. The opinion of the administrators has nothing to do with the rules by which all members must abide by on this forum and for which enforcement a moderator was appointed. That's not because the administrators and the moderator disagree with your point of view that you don't have the right to express it or that you're at risk for censorship. The administrators and the moderator have the right to disagree with the opinions expressed on this forum without their "authority" and duty being involved in any way. Said otherwise, outside the frame properly defined by the "Terms of use", the administrators and the moderator are like any other full-fledged member.

Moderation is strictly based on the "Terms of use" (along with the obvious horse sense and the basic good manners). The violations of them only are legitimate grounds before warning utterances and/or that concrete steps be taken. Multiple complaints from different members might also be a cause for concrete action. When "official" warnings are uttered, you will notice the difference betwen the latter ones and personally based replies.

I thought that this point was clear enough to not have to state it plainly. Please, take henceforth this reminder into consideration next time you want to involve and mention the administrators of this forum and the moderator in your comments, regardless of your motives.

A word to the wise is enough !

 

Hi Sis thinking:

Your kidding right? You draw your conclusion by reading the subheadings? That's like saying you heard Jesus start his sermon on the Mount, just verse 1 and formed a conclusion of his entire teachings from the subheading of one sermon.

I am sorry that you chose to take this approach, but it is your prerogative. I wish you well and may Jehovah bless you as you bless others.

By the way, do you still take part in the ministry of Jehovah's Witnesses, whether it be door to door, or casual witnessing, or letter or phone witnessing? If the answer is yes, then I ask, why do you bother, you know people have their own religion and faiths? Why are you trying to disrupt their faith that they are happy with? If your answer is yes, you probably don't see yourself as the wrecking ball of faith, do you? You probably don't believe that you are a tool of Satan the Devil, do you? Please, just give me that same courtesy.

frank

 

Hi Tsaphah:

What your telling me, if I'm hearing you correctly is that there is no difference between the creation of man, by "us" in Genesis 1:26 whom were not blessed and told to become fruitful and multipy and the creation of the man directly by Jehovah God himself with aid from no other, and whom he did bless and command to become fruitful and multiply. Is that what I am hearing you say?

You see, pre-adamic man was created by the angels ("you are all gods") and were therefore Sons of Sons of God, with his oversight and direction (that's the us part, Jehovah is not only a Father, but a teacher, Jesus and the rest of the angels that listened at least, learned from the best, and the best way of learning for most is doing, even if that is by trial and error).

Adamic man, or those who spring from the man, are sons of a direct Son of God. Adam was not the last itteration of the angels, no he was the direct handywork of the Creator himself, Jehovah God and was therefore a direct Son of God, not a Son of a Son of God as was man
.

Still don't see any difference? Or is this just trivial nonsense? Also, it's not Lord's Witnesses, it's Lords' Witnesses. I won't attempt to describe the difference in those two names as I am aware that your abilities in this area far exceed mine. In this I am dead serious and not trying to be cute.

Frank