JWs and Contradition

[POI]

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

"Although Jehovahs 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 Gods 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]

DOES THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS WEBSITE EXPLICITLY STATE WHOSE (AND WHAT KIND OF) SUFFERING IS BEING ADDRESED?

Reasoning From the Scriptures

SUFFERING

Definition: The experience undergone by a person when enduring pain or distress. The suffering may be physical, mental, or emotional. Many things can cause suffering; for example, the damage done as a result of war and of commercial greed, adverse hereditary factors, illness, accidents, "natural disasters," unkind things said or done by others, demonic pressures, an awareness of impending calamity, or ones own foolishness. Suffering that results from these various causes will be considered here. However, suffering may also be experienced because of a persons sensitivity to the plight of other people or his grief at observing ungodly conduct. Below are just a few examples :

source:https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=suffering+definition .

There are hundreds of references to suffering in the Watchtower publications, it should be noted however that in the context of origins , no reference can be proven to refer to anything other than to the suffering of HUMANS.

• "If they had obeyed Jehovahs law, there would have been no suffering to mar human life" - The kniwledge that leads to everlasting life Chap 8 p. 73 par 8

• Human SufferingWhy Does God Permit It? The Watchtower 1994 11/1 pp. 4-8

• WHAT ABOUT HUMAN SUFFERING? - w64 7/1 pp. 389-391 - The Watchtower1964

• THE BIBLES VIEWPOINT: Suffering - Some people feel that God causes human suffering or that, at the very least, he is indifferent to it. But is that what the Bible teaches? You might be surprised at the answer- Awake January 2014 p.14

• How will God undo the effects of human suffering? - What does the bible really teach ? Chap 11 p. 106

[JehovahsWitness]

DO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS PICTURES OF HEALTHY HAPPY ANIMALS IN PARADISE INDICATED THAT ANIMALS WILL NO LONGER EXPERIENCE PAIN OR INJURY WHEN SIN IS REMOVED?


No. The ability to feel pain (for both animals and humans) is a result of having a functional central nervous system - indeed the inability to feel the sensation of pain is considered a dangerous symptom of genetic disorder. Therefore whether in the pre-edenic world or the coming paradise, Jehovahs Witnesses believe the ability to feel physical pain was and always will be, a feature of both human and animal physiology.

What Jehovahs Witness illustrations of happy humans and animals is trying to convey, is the idea that they believe a world without sin will mean a world without the abuse of animals, causing them unnecessary anguish and suffering. As well as the removal of the sicknesses caused by environmental factors such as pollution, contaminated food and water and the destruction of their natural habitation. With God's intended ecological balance restored, humans and animals will again be able to live in peace and harmony.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS


FURTHER READING : Do Animals Go to Heaven?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... to-heaven/


RELATED POSTS

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe animals were created to live forever?
viewtopic.php?p=1157766#p1157766

Where do animals go when they die?
viewtopic.php?p=347553#p347553

Will there be pets in heaven?
viewtopic.php?p=1027090#p1027090

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ANIMALS , HEAVEN and ...THE EARTHLY PARSDISE

[JehovahsWitness]

DOES THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS WEBSITE COMMENT ON POSSIBLE SUFFERING OF DINOSAURS ?

No. Other than acknowledging their existence , the Jehovahs Witness makes no comment on the health of dinosaurs.



DOES THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF JWs INDICATE IN ANY WAY THAT DINOSAURS MAY INDEED HAVE SUFFERED JN SOME WAY PRIOR TO THE ORIGINAL SIN?

Yes, since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that animals were not purposed to live forever, their belief system holds that all animals would have been subject of the natural cycle of birth - aging- - death. Death and (as was the case for dinosaurs) extinction are arguably at the very least distressing. Although not explicitly stated, their beliefs are a de facto acknowledgement that dinosaurs may well have "suffering" in some way before the fall.

* Jehovahs Witnesses hold that God is loving and kind and would not have designed a system where any of his creatures suffered unnecessary and unending physical agony .


IS THE ABOVE NOT AN ACKNOWLEDGING OF THE EXISTNCE OF SIN AND EVIL AT THAT TIME ?

No because any theoretical "animal suffering" incurred from injury or aging would according to the JW teachings be part of a natural cycle designed by God and not be catagorized as "unnecessary" pain caused by sin or evil.

DOES THIS NOT CONTRADICT THE TEACHING THAT SUFFERING BEGAN WITH SIN?

No. The JWs website states explicitly that when they use the term "suffering" in connection with its origins, they are speaking about HUMAN SUFFERING caused by imperfection, sin or evil. (see post 31: viewtopic.php?p=1158108#p1158108).

CONCLUSION There are absolutely no comments in any JW literature admitting (or denying) the existence of any possible pain or suffering experienced by animals prior to the fall of man. Since the Jehovahs Witnesses hold animals were designed to eventually grow old and die, any suggestion there is a contradiction between acknowledging animals suffer a degree of pain and their belief in the origin of sin and human suffering reflects a misunderstanding of their core beliefs rather than any real internal contradiction in doctrine.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


FURTHER READING A Life Without PainIs It Really Possible?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101978001



RELATED POSTS

To what does the Jehovahs Witness website refer when it uses the term "suffering"?
viewtopic.php?p=1158108#p1158108

Is there any statement from the Jehovahs Witness leadership that no physical pain or distress was experiences by any animals prior to the fall into sin?
viewtopic.php?p=1157764#p1157764

What does the bible say about DINOSAURS?
viewtopic.php?p=1157766#p1157766

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time?
viewtopic.php?p=1157715#p1157715

What is being communicated by JW illustrations of humans and animals in paradise ?
viewtopic.php?p=1158112#p1158112

[POI]

DOES THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS WEBSITE COMMENT ON POSSIBLE SUFFERING OF DINOSAURS ?

No. Other than acknowledging their existence , the Jehovahs Witness makes no comment on the health of dinosaurs.

I have directly answered this question 3 times and counting. The Bible's focus is not on dinosaurs, but humans. Of course, the Bible is not going to mention much of anything regarding any other species, aside from the centerpiece, which is humans.

DOES THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF JWs INDICATE IN ANY WAY THAT DINOSAURS MAY INDEED HAVE SUFFERED JN SOME WAY PRIOR TO THE ORIGINAL SIN?

Yes, since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that animals were not purposed to live forever, their belief system holds that all animals would have been subject of the natural cycle of birth - aging- - death. Death and (as was the case for dinosaurs) extinction are arguably at the very least distressing. Although not explicitly stated, their beliefs are a de facto acknowledgement that dinosaurs may well have "suffering" in some way before the fall.

This is where Christian apologetics reigns supreme. The goal here is to twist and spin definitions, to taste, in order to mask or hide the contradiction. We've already been over the definition of suffering. We also know how dinosaurs suffered. It's a gotcha moment for which you have no comeback. Sorry. Deal with it. 'Suffering' did not begin until the fall of man. And yet, dinosaurs suffered

[TRANSPONDER]

I just see nothing but evasion. 'Oh, let's not talk about dinosaurs, since we are losing the debate but change to Bible and humans'.

No. We do not like people who try to bvamboozle us, and a JW appealing to what the JW apologists say is attempted bamboozlement. This doesn't even have to be about dinosaurs but animals, and is for all Genesis literalists. Animals were before humans - the Bible says. God created the whole thing and 'it was good'. Does that include evil and suffering? Does it incluse carnivore kind or did they eat nuts and berries? So when did they turn carnivore? It could only be when man fell and became sinful. Otherwise the creation was made with evil from the start. I haven't seen this explained once let alone three times, and pointing us to previous posts or JW propaganda that ignores or evades the issue just tells us that JWs have no answer, no more than other YE creationists and they can only misdirect and evade.


It makes no sense. YE genesis -literalist Creationism never did.

[Purple Knight]

Yes, since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that animals were not purposed to live forever, their belief system holds that all animals would have been subject of the natural cycle of birth - aging- - death. Death and (as was the case for dinosaurs) extinction are arguably at the very least distressing. Although not explicitly stated, their beliefs are a de facto acknowledgement that dinosaurs may well have "suffering" in some way before the fall.

My question about this, is what Christians think about putting your animal down, if it is suffering, since the aging portion is more or less natural.

I've seen a lot of old dogs at the park, who are clearly in pain, limping a bit, but surging forward to the next stimulus anyway. There's a particular sadness to this. I would not put that animal down. But if the pain is so great that the animal will not choose to go forward and just lies there, I can see why people would make that difficult choice. In a Christian framework, I wonder how much of this is intended, how much our humanity is intended, and how much our humane participation or intervention is intended.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that animals were not purposed to live forever, their belief system holds that all animals would have been subject of the natural cycle of birth - aging- - death. Death and (as was the case for dinosaurs) extinction are arguably at the very least distressing. Although not explicitly stated, their beliefs are a de facto acknowledgement that dinosaurs may well have "suffering" in some way before the fall.

My question about this, is what Christians think about putting your animal down, if it is suffering, since the aging portion is more or less natural.

I cannot speak for all who identify as Christians, but for Jehovah's Witneesses this would be a personal decision. That said, the article below makes thenfollowing observation.

Proverbs 12:10 says: "The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal, but the mercies of the wicked ones are cruel." The person who is brutal with his animals, causing them needless suffering, shows disregard for Gods creation; what he considers merciful treatment is actually "cruel." The Christian, on the other hand, appreciates the needs of his animals and has feelings for their welfare. In the case of an animal that is suffering from serious disease or injury, or that cannot be properly cared for without imposing undesirable burdens, he may feel that it would be the wise and merciful course to put it to death. The Christian is responsible to make his own decision in this regard. - Watchtower March 1, 1973 p. 159

FURTHER READING Is it proper for a Christian to have a pet sterilized or to have it "put to sleep"?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1973167

[Purple Knight]

In the case of an animal that is suffering from serious disease or injury, or that cannot be properly cared for without imposing undesirable burdens, he may feel that it would be the wise and merciful course to put it to death. The Christian is responsible to make his own decision in this regard. - Watchtower March 1, 1973 p. 159

I think it's wise to put the ball in the owner's court like this. Doing otherwise, however well-intentioned (and however many edge cases you can find where you can show, oh, abuse can be prevented here) can lead the majority of people into trying to tick the right box because they feel they have to or fear reprisal, rather than caring for their animal and its needs, first.

Here is a cat that looks like a yin-yang because I think you understand exactly why I post it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that animals were not purposed to live forever, their belief system holds that all animals would have been subject of the natural cycle of birth - aging- - death. Death and (as was the case for dinosaurs) extinction are arguably at the very least distressing. Although not explicitly stated, their beliefs are a de facto acknowledgement that dinosaurs may well have "suffering" in some way before the fall.

My question about this, is what Christians think about putting your animal down, if it is suffering, since the aging portion is more or less natural.

I cannot speak for all who identify as Christians, but for Jehovah's Witneesses this would be a personal decision. That said, the article below makes thenfollowing observation.

Proverbs 12:10 says: "The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal, but the mercies of the wicked ones are cruel." The person who is brutal with his animals, causing them needless suffering, shows disregard for Gods creation; what he considers merciful treatment is actually "cruel." The Christian, on the other hand, appreciates the needs of his animals and has feelings for their welfare. In the case of an animal that is suffering from serious disease or injury, or that cannot be properly cared for without imposing undesirable burdens, he may feel that it would be the wise and merciful course to put it to death. The Christian is responsible to make his own decision in this regard. - Watchtower March 1, 1973 p. 159

FURTHER READING Is it proper for a Christian to have a pet sterilized or to have it "put to sleep"?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1973167

It seems to me that this works as well or better as evolving human secular morality. At one time, animal sacrifice was ok. In some cultures, it still is. We have moved on and now deem that the animal sacrifices of the OT are wrong. Not even Jews do it now.

[Purple Knight]

It seems to me that this works as well or better as evolving human secular morality. At one time, animal sacrifice was ok. In some cultures, it still is. We have moved on and now deem that the animal sacrifices of the OT are wrong. Not even Jews do it now.

I'm posting this because I'm sort of on the religious side here. If we throw up our hands and accept subjectivity then this isn't wrong. We need a way to not allow this. "Morality evolved to benefit the organism so whatever benefits the organism is moral," does not do that.

But to be fair, "god said" is no better, because then, they get to do whatever they want anyway, because god said they could.

There has to be some third way that lets people bring down the boot on something genuinely horrible.