JWs and Contradition

[POI]

The JW.org website states they are not antiscience. This sounds like a rational position. (i.e.):

"Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible."

JW.org also states:

"Evil and suffering. These began when one of God’s angels rebelled. (John 8:​44) This angel, who after his rebellion was called “Satan” and “Devil,” persuaded the first human couple to join him, and the consequences have been disastrous for their descendants. (Genesis 3:​1-6; Romans 5:​12) In order to settle the moral issues raised by Satan, God has allowed evil and suffering, but He will not permit them to continue forever."

For debate: If no evil/suffering existed before the "fall of man", then why do we have evidence that evil/suffering existed prior to the fall of man?

Receipts #1: Dinosaurs exists prior to humans. Fossils exist, of dinosaurs sustaining injury:(http://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamonta ... 28ccf42e8c)

Receipt #2: More dinosaur suffering: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ing-about/)

[JehovahsWitness]

... the difference between morality and one's own personal benefit is that sometimes, one should do what is right rather than seek personal benefit.

I would agree. In any case as we are discussing as per the OP the Jehovahs Witness position, it is our belief that there is such a thing as morals (although this strays a bit from the debate question)


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[POI]

(although this strays a bit from the debate question)

What is undebatable, is that to retain the position of a JW, you must acknowledge a contradiction., as per post 60.

[Purple Knight]

Why ought anyone take an action in accordance with what the universe has determined to be an objective morality?

Because ought is different than is. It might be wonderful for me personally to kill and steal but I still shouldn't.

We are in morality there, aren't we? Species or sub - species or even coloring (which can evolve) is governed by natural forces. Ethics are not. Apart from human well being it is all human preferences and rules. We decide; it is not a cosmic law like gravity.

We decide means what, exactly, if we're to disagree? If there's just nothing there because we have to hammer it out, fine, I agree. But if it's majority rules or the most moral person just wins and gets to impose his way (even if the most moral person is God) then I can't find a justification for it being that way.

Interesting point (and I'd better get this in quick before i get slung off the board ) even if Morals and ethics were a law of physics (never mind the opinion of a god) why should we follow it? Obviously gravity means if we ignore it we smash on the pavement, but we think our way around it and hundreds of passengers defy gravity in aircraft every day.

I think this is a really good way to describe it, because just as the consequence for ignoring gravity is getting splattered on the pavement (something we do not want), the consequence for ignoring morality is being immoral, which is something we do not want. In practice I've found that it makes you a subhuman whose wants and feelings others do not have to take into account. It may even delete your human rights. If you need a practical reason I guess this is it. But no practical reason, so far as I know, was taught to any of us. When we learn not to do something because it's wrong, it's just wrong so you shouldn't do it, end of story. Following morality has no benefit to us as individuals and may even incur a detriment, but we ought to follow it anyway, for the sake of others.

I would agree. In any case as we are discussing as per the OP the Jehovahs Witness position, it is our belief that there is such a thing as morals (although this strays a bit from the debate question)

Sorry it has gotten off-topic. And perhaps this is overly definitional but we must know morality and benefit must be, in at least some instances, different, or they would be called the same thing, right?

A question of what one should do, to [some end], is different than a question of what one should do, period.

[JehovahsWitness]

Sorry it has gotten off-topic.

That's alright. I'm sure the thread would have eventually return to its original topic. If you or blue had a point about the JWs in regar to the OP, I'm glad to offer my contribution. We hold to the biblical moral code and I dont think this conflicts or contradicts (which was the challenge ) any of our other beliefs.

[POI]

If you or blue had a point about the JWs in regar to the OP, I'm glad to offer my contribution.

Yes, and your contribution involves spinning things, as evidence by your provided exchange up to this point. I'm still awaiting a response to post 60 (i.e.):

Quote: "Suffering is a product of the fall, a consequence of human sin against God (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21). Suffering is in our lives because we are living in a broken world. Some suffering is due to our sinful and wrong choices, but some is due simply to the world being fallen."

The JW cannot reconcile this contradiction without back-peddling or back-tracking. JW's state they do not deny science, which means JW's acknowledge dinosaurs went extinct before humans came into the picture. The fossil record reveals that dinosaurs suffered, even by their definition. This presents a direct contradiction. Why? Dinosaurs should never have suffered. Hence, the reason JW's will spin things, by redefining terms, etc...

To retain being a JW is to acknowledge a belief system which is involved in contradiction.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #64]

I think what they're saying is that if animals suffered before the fall, it amounts to a knockdown.

Honestly it depends on what whoever wrote that evil and suffering started after the fall, meant by suffering.

We can probably rule out that they meant that nobody stubbed their toe before that and if they did, it never hurt. We need pain to keep us from destroying our bodies inadvertently. What's left is a question of when pain becomes suffering. I think we can rule out never. The reason, for example, that horses with broken legs were traditionally shot, is that there simply isn't enough wet tissue in that leg to bring healing factors to the bone, which basically takes up the whole leg. This is just how animals like horses are built, and you can say the same thing about design or evolution: It just wasn't worth it to give them more tissue there just in case it breaks its leg, because the bony leg is so much more efficient for running, and because in the wild it's unlikely one would survive a broken leg without being eaten first, anyway.

I can't personally imagine walking by a massive sauropod that had broken its leg and was either being eaten alive, slowly starving to death, or maybe even being crushed under its own weight because its weight wasn't meant to be borne sideways and the fall broke a rib and punctured a lung, and saying it wasn't suffering. However I have also read that if the trauma is bad enough, you don't really suffer because you go into shock.

One thing I will say though, is that very special suffering when someone else is deliberately trying to inflict suffering for its own sake, to be cruel... monkeys do that. Baboons in particular love to do it.

[JehovahsWitness]

One thing I will say though, is that very special suffering when someone else is deliberately trying to inflict suffering for its own sake, to be cruel... monkeys do that. Baboons in particular love to do it.

I read somewhere that young elephants turn delinquant when there are not enough dominant males to keep them in line; perhaps animal "delinquency" will be regulated when there is a better ecological balance. In any case biblically God reserves moral judgement for humans (and angels) not what the bible classifies as animals.

[Purple Knight]

I read somewhere that young elephants turn delinquant when there are not enough dominant males to keep them in line; perhaps animal "delinquency" will be regulated when there is a better ecological balance. In any case biblically God reserves moral judgement for humans (and angels) not what the bible classifies as animals.

It's true, they do. They destroy things just to destroy them, try to rape rhinos, things like that. Whether or not God judges them, it seems the animals that commit the most and worst atrocities are the ones with the most intellect, and are most like man. I'd like to think that the intellect just gives you a greater capacity, both for negative and positive, and that the animal simply doesn't know any better because he has nobody to teach him any better (or, in the case of the adult bulls being around, he does).