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.