This is a total non sequitur. It makes no sense and is on no way an argument or even linked to an argument. Would have had to have been supernatural beings for what? With reference to what? In short what is this is this supposed to mean?
Of course they do. If they didn’t then all organisms would share all the genes of their common ancestors. Since they don’t we can discount this statement out of hand.
This statement betrays a total ignorance of genetics.
Genes can and do disappear from a population in a single generation. IOW it can and does occur in minutes, not millennia.
Once again, demonstrable nonsense. People have been in the Americas for about 10, 000 years and the people in the Americas lack many genes common in Siberia. Moreover people in South America lack many genes found in North America.
So your claim that thousands of years isn’t sufficient time to have any impact on gene frequencies is nonsense. If 100% of all children born in an environment die as a result of expressing as dominant gene that gene will be eliminated completely within the space of just 50 years. Thousands of years will never be required. With less than 100% mortality for carriers it will take somewhat longer, but we know from concrete examples that thousands of years are more than sufficient.
Once again, this is a total non sequitur. Your claim was that population never, ever lose genetic diversity. I proved by using poodles as an example that populations do lose genetic diversity.
Now you seem to be claiming that somehow artificial selection can achieve things that natural selection for exactly the same traits could never achieve. Is that what you are claiming? And if so I will recommend a few books by Gould and Dawkins that you should read before commenting further on this issue.
I’d just like to point out that I doubt very much if Raindog is a JW as he claims. Actual JWs are urged very strongly not to participate in internet discussion of this kind because they could be talking to disfellowshipped JWs, which is a major sin for them.
As far as Raindog’s claims that I frequently get points of JW theology wrong, I only need to say that anyone can do a seach to see both our histories on this subject. Although Raindog has frequently claimed that I have been wrong, as here, he has never been able to actually prvide any evidence to support this. Instead in every thread he cries “But I’m a JW, I therefore have more authoirty than you”. Even whn my points have been backed with multiple quotes form JW publications that is his reposnse: the publications of the church are wrong and only a practicing JW can know the truth.
IOW despite his multiple claims of errors it only ever comes back to an argument from his own authority, and I have reaon to doubt he even is a JW.
As for Raindog’s claim that “God wants you to stop Satan’s rule or do anything to thwart it?” is not the same as “God wants you to fight Satan on his behalf”, I’ll leave others to decide on whether he is posting in good faith on that issue. The answer is rather obvious.
Whoa, Blake, why the hostility? I appreciate all responses, but since (as you indicated) it’s pretty rare to see an open JW discussing JW beliefs in an internet forum, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t attack him for sharing, at least in this thread. While I am (clearly) no expert on the subject, I’m finding what he says precisely consistent with my co-worker’s explanations, right down to the tone of the language. I have no reason to doubt his voracity, I appreciate his contribution greatly, and I hope he’ll continue to post.
It has something to do with the way the sight of a monitor affects his personality. It isn’t personal, it is just the way he expresses all his thoughts.
Okay. It sounds like we need a refresher on basic genetics definitions. Do you understand the difference between a “gene” and an “allele”? A gene is a section of a chromosome that codes for a protein. The specific spot on the chromosome in question can have multiple isoforms. These are known as “alleles”. In practical terms, alleles are different forms of a gene found in a given population.
If we replace the term “gene” in your posts with “allele” we can see that you are correct–a dominant lethal allele will be eliminated in a very short period of time and a dominant allele will often surpass and even eliminate a recessive allele if the selective pressure is strong enough. However, neither of these actions will cause the gene to disappear, but they *cause the allele to disappear. You still carry the gene, but may have a 0% occurrence for an allele in a given population. We can get much deeper into this if you want, but since we’re already working on a hijack of a hijack, I’ll leave it at that.
Now, to get back to this:
The total deletion of a gene in an organism is an extremely rare thing. When it happens, it causes major problems at the chromosomal level. When you understand the language of genetics, if you still don’t understand this, ask and we’ll delve deeper.
What you are describing as the concept of “mega-diverse” is unclear. Adam and Eve together can only carry a maximum of four given alleles for each gene, assuming both were heterozygous for every possible trait. Human beings can only carry two alleles because of the diploid structure of the human DNA strand. This assumes that Eve was not a clone; seeing as the story goes she was formed from Adam’s rib, if she carries Adam’s DNA then it’s a total of two different alleles. In either circumstance, this is not a diverse selection of alleles, and for other alleles to develop, mutations would have to occur.
Regardless, whether the original F0 breeding pair in the species evolved from apes or was planted here by God, what you’re describing in the original response is still evolution–the only quibble is the start point. None of this in any way rules out Adam and Eve, even Adam and Eve planted fully formed by God, as an original F0 breeding pair for the human race. It only serves to illustrate that they wouldn’t have to be “mega-diverse” or different in genetic structure from modern humans, or if they were some as-yet-undefined concept of “mega-diverse”, they wouldn’t have been
In order to carry “more genes” they’d have had to be tetraploid or higher in genetic structure and then you run into some very, very serious problems. And again, if we’re talking about magic and God creating some kind of perfect super-being that’s capable of distributing genetic material in a different way than modern humans then… what can I say? God is all-powerful and can do whatever he wants.
The point is, I’m not disputing the Biblical Adam and Eve, just your explanation on the “how” as it relates to modern humans. And anyway, the intent of this thread is to learn about JW beliefs, not to debate or debunk them.
Okay. It sounds like we need a refresher on basic genetics definitions. Do you understand the difference between a “gene” and an “allele”? A gene is a section of a chromosome that codes for a protein. The specific spot on the chromosome in question can have multiple isoforms. These are known as “alleles”. In practical terms, alleles are different forms of a gene found in a given population.
If we replace the term “gene” in your posts with “allele” we can see that you are correct–a dominant lethal allele will be eliminated in a very short period of time and a dominant allele will often surpass and even eliminate a recessive allele if the selective pressure is strong enough. However, neither of these actions will cause the gene to disappear, but they may cause the allele to disappear. You still carry the gene, but may have a 0% occurrence for an allele in a given population. We can get much deeper into this if you want, but since we’re already working on a hijack of a hijack, I’ll leave it at that.
Now, to get back to this:
The total deletion of a gene in an organism is an extremely rare thing. When it happens, it causes major problems at the chromosomal level. When you understand the language of genetics, if you still don’t understand this, ask and we’ll delve deeper.
What you are describing as the concept of “mega-diverse” is unclear. Adam and Eve together can only carry a maximum of four given alleles for each gene, assuming both were heterozygous for every possible trait. Human beings can only carry two alleles because of the diploid structure of the human DNA strand. This assumes that Eve was not a clone; seeing as the story goes she was formed from Adam’s rib, if she carries Adam’s DNA then it’s a total of two different alleles. In either circumstance, this is not a diverse selection of alleles, and for other alleles to develop, such as all of the alleles that now exist in humankind, mutations–a whole lot of them–would have to occur. An Adam and Eve “identical in every way to modern humans” simply would not have room on the DNA strand to contain all the genetic material found in the human species.
Regardless, whether the original F0 breeding pair in the species evolved from apes or was planted here by God, what you’re describing in the original response is still evolution–the only quibble is the start point. None of this in any way rules out Adam and Eve, even Adam and Eve planted fully formed by God, as an original F0 breeding pair for the human race. It only serves to illustrate that they wouldn’t have to be “mega-diverse” or different in genetic structure from modern humans, or if they were some as-yet-undefined concept of “mega-diverse”, they wouldn’t have been
In order to carry “more genes” they’d have had to be tetraploid or higher in genetic structure and then you run into some very, very serious problems. And again, if we’re talking about magic and God creating some kind of perfect super-being that’s capable of distributing genetic material in a different way than modern humans then… what can I say? God is all-powerful and can do whatever he wants.
The point is, I’m not disputing the Biblical Adam and Eve, just the plausibility of your explanation on the “how” as it relates to modern humans. And anyway, the intent of this thread is to learn about JW beliefs, not to debate or debunk them.
Thank you very much for these words, NajaNivea. I will continue to post to this thread as long as there is interest. I would also like to continue my discussion with Beaucarnea, and others are invited to comment as well.
Lastly, I have no hard feelings towards Blake, none whatsoever. In my first encounter with him, he responded [in what I perceived to be] in an aggressive manner when I complimented him. I’ve learned since that he seems to respond rather aggressively when someome (someone being me for this purpose…) disagrees.
Ironically, I happen to agree with his last post. I have a long history here of advising caution on mesasage boards.While some really good information can come from the internet, and even from message boards, I have been consistnt in saying that even my own words should be looked at with a heathy suspicion. I am a regualr poster to threads that involve the bible. My message here has been consistent: Don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself.
Lastly, while it seems to me that I’ve established some credibility that I am indeed a JW, it is common for people to misrepresent themselves. I take no offense at anyone who questions the veracity of some faceless guy who calls himself “raindog”, and thereby takes the time to read the accounts for themselves. In fact, I welcome it.
Oh, and I forgot to address this.
Sure, poodles are “less diverse” than wolves. You’re also describing a breed, a subset of a subspecies created from a breeding pool of wolves. In order to relate to our discussion, you’d have to be claiming that all domestic dogs were derived from a single original breeding pair of wolves and that this F0 pair were magically “mega-diverse” as you described Adam and Eve to be. Else, all domestic dogs would be equally genetically diverse, which as you pointed out is not the case. Domestic breeds of dogs were created by taking traits expressed by various wolves, selected with artificial pressure by humankind.
I did not claim that “somehow artificial selection can achieve things that natural selection for exactly the same traits could never achieve”, simply that natural selection would never achieve these traits. As we established in my prior post, the alleles all exist in the original breeding population of wolves (with the exception of mutations that we’ve continued to select for and exploit) but a natural environment has no “reason” to select for coats that need extreme levels of grooming to maintain in a healthy state, or parti-colored “anti-camouflage” coats, or any of the numerous functionally useless traits we select for in our pet dogs.
Pariah dogs around the world are remarkably consistent in appearance. See:the Caanan Dog,the New Guinea Singing Dog, the Dingo, and the Carolina Dog amongst others. Give any random selection of domestic dogs time and room to breed unchecked, and what you end up with is a medium sized, brownish, prick-eared canine. Not poodles.
Beaucarnea
I would like make a couple comments regarding your posts that speak to JW practices. That is not to debate the items, as I have little interest in such a debate and I perceive you are speaking in good faith. In another post, I may speak with more specificity about your friend Robert. But first I would like to comment on some of the items in your post. (Post 34, including your re-post from the earlier thread)
I think it is important o distinguish between the actions of any given JW (or non-JW) and what the ‘policy’ or doctrine prescribes.
No JW is ever told that he/she is not allowed in the church. That being said, perhaps some JW brought a gun to a meeting or something bizzare and some legal/police action was needed for the congregation’s safety. It would have to be this type of extraordinary circumstance before someone was not allowed. Even disfellowshipped JWs are welcome at the meetings.
Other than for safety reasons (as in cases of abuse) no JW elder would be allowed to advise a man or woman that one or the other should deny access to the marital home to his/her partner.
No JW policy or guidance would involve keeping a parent from his/her kids, nor advise then they must remain in the car.
If a JW is disfellowshipped, contact pretty much ends. This is harder in families as there is the mechanics of picking up/dropping off kids (if divorced) meals, school conferences, and day to day parenting that requires parents to talk. If the disfellowshipped one has JW parents, for example, and these “necessary mechanics” don’t exist, it is true that the direction from the organization is that contact ends. So…it would be common for [in this case Robert’s adult JW parents) to end even phone contact. It would be equally common however, for the disfellowshipped person to respect this.
The practical application of being disfellowshipped is such that contact ends—even small talk. While JWs don’t use the term, it is a form of shunning. Nonetheless the JW practice doesn’t involve shaming, or overt acts of hostility. Quite the contrary. No JW would ever be counseled to shame a disfellowshipped person, nor make any display that showed contempt, like turning one’s back. (more on this in another post)
In society, homeschooling is on the rise, nationwide. This is partly due to the sorry state of affairs in public schools. I would surmise that JWs homeschool at a rate greater than society as a whole, and in some areas more than others, I suppose. Nonetheless, JWs do not separate themselves from the world as many orders do. They are doctors and lawyers and school teachers and fireman and a thousand other occupations. While the parents in Robert’s congregation may have come up with some arrangement so that “most” of the kids in his congregation are homeschooled, I can tell you that this is unusual. The overwhelming amount of JW kids go to the same schools youur kids go to. The percentage of JW kids being homeschooled is greater than society as a whole, and rising I would imagine, but it is still a very small percentage of all JW kids.
I have never heard that female members are disouraged from pursuing professional careers. (?!)_
I have never heard that "only men are strong enough to work a full time job and maintain a sense of detachment from the world people. "
(When I say “never heard” I mean never saw it explicitly or implicitly in print, never heard implicitly or explicitly from the platform ,and never heard anyone express this as an opinion; and the only time I have heard anything like it is right here, right now.)
JWs are never counseled to either feel or display anything akin to “scorn”, “contempt”, to “berate” a disfellowshipped person, to “despise” someone, to “yell” at someone, nor give anyone “dirty looks.” In fact, the counsel is quite the opposite. If a JW acted in this fashion it would be in stark contrast to counsel and would likely result in counsel given to the offending party.
Sorry to keep harping the point, but I feel like I should clarify this. You are claiming that poodles are an example of a population becoming less genetically diverse over time, and that this demonstrates that humans could be less diverse now than Adam and Eve. The flaw in the comparison comes in thus: poodles are less diverse than wolves because “wolves” collectively names species–a group. We’ve put pressure on wolves to select for and artificially “evolve” poodles. That’s different from the assumption of Adam and Eve as a single original pair from which all the rest of humankind is derived. With only a single pair, you won’t have introduction of new alleles from other, non-related members of the population to give us new and different phenotypes.
This brings us back to the original point. If we assume that humans came from a single breeding pair with DNA that functions identically to modern humans, and we also agree that modern humans are a genotypically diverse group (see: Asians carrying different alleles for skin tone than Africans) you will see that the only way the diversity that we see today could occur is for it to increase through mutations–environmental pressure, evolution. Or, the supernatural, if we’re allowing for God. As always in this thread, I’m not disallowing the concept of God or that something could be so because God made it so, just responding to your assertion that your statement made scientific sense.
What hostility? Raindog said that I was habitually worng on JW theology. Is said that he has no evidence to suport that beyond his standard agrument form his won authority. He said that you never mentioned fighting in a war to aid Jesus. I said I would leave it to other to judge whether he was postong in good faith on this issue. I was neither more nor less hostile than the post I was responding to.
I agree, you do.
Yes, a allele is a form of a gene, usually one that codes for a specific form of a protein. The point you seem to not understand is that an allele is a gene. It isn’t something different from a gene, it is a form of a gene. Thus we can and speak of “the gene for haemophilia” as well as the “allele for haemophilia”. Allele may be more specific but haemophilia is also has agene, and haemophilia can be very rapidly eliminated from a population, thus the gene for haemophilia is eradicated.
No, genes can disappear as well.
Look we can resolve this if you simply answer the question: are you arguing that there are no genes present in Siberia that are presenting North America, and no genes present in wolves that are not present in poodles? If not then you have to concede that genes do indeed disappear and do so within a thousand years.
And if an allele has vanished then a gene hgas vanished. You seem to think that a allele is not a gene. An allele is a gene, it is, as you defined it, a section of a chromosome that codes for a protein. It is a specific variation of a section of a chromosome that codes for a protein. If you don’t believe me I will provide countless references in peer reviewed journals to author speaking of genes for traits such as haemophilia or lactose tolerance or albinism that are allelic traits.
No it isn’t it happens all the time, often every generation on small populations. It is very common in human populations and amongst dogs. None of this is considered even slightly controversial amongst geneticists.
I think I have demonstrated that I understand the language of genetics quite well. At this stage it is time for you to provide some evidence that you do. Since I have provided references to geneticists happily referring to things like sickle cell genes and mutant genes perhaps it is time for you to provide evidence that an allele, such as the type that causes sickle cell, is not a gene.
Another total non sequitur. Nobody ever claimed otherwise.
Another total non sequitur. Nobody ever claimed otherwise.
Another non sequitur. Wouldn’t have been what?
A strawman. Nobody ever used the term “more genes”.
Since your dispute seems to stem from a belief that traits such as haemophilia don’t have genes and hence such genes can’t be eliminated it isn’t much of a dispute.
Yes, and we were also discussing pools of humans, so what is your point?
Nonsense. I used this example purely to demonstrate that populations do not always become more genetically diverse over time, which is what you claimed. Once you concede that populations derived from small pools and subject to selective pressure can and do exhibit fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity in subsequent generations then we can forget all about wolves and poodles. Until then I will keep referring to this solely and entirely to demonstrate that you have made serious error in claiming that that populations derived from small pools and subject to selective pressure wouldn’t get subsequent generations with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity, if anything, you’d get more diversity due to the rise of mutations.
This is another total non sequitur. The issue at hand is not what traits can be achieved. The issue at hand is your claim that that populations derived from small pools and subject to selective pressure wouldn’t get subsequent generations with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity, if anything, you’d get more diversity due to the rise of mutations.
Look, which of the following statements are you disputing?
*That poodles are derived from small pools
*That the ancestors of poodles were subject to selective pressure
*That over subsequent generations poodle ancestors exhibited with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity
If you accept all that and you accept that artificial selection can not achieve things that natural selection can achieve then why exactly do you continue to claim that populations derived from small pools and subject to selective pressure wouldn’t get subsequent generations with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity, if anything, you’d get more diversity due to the rise of mutations.
Are you perhaps claiming that natural selection can affect such change sin wolves but never in humans? I am genuine confused about what your position is here.
Another total non sequitur. Nobody claimed otherwise.
The point is that populations derived from small pools and subject to selective pressure can and produce subsequent generations with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity. What they actually look like is irrelevant.
Are you seriously arguing that if the wolf population consisted of just two individuals, both of which carry the sickle cell gene and both of which express the sickle cell phenotype, then I can never eliminate that gene because I don’t have “have introduction of new alleles from other, non-related members of the population to give us new and different phenotypes.
Sorry, but that’s not even remotely close to being accurate. I could eliminate the sickle cell gene and produce a non-sickle cell genotype in a single generation if I desired. Yet you have just said that with a single pair we can never produce new genotypes.
As for the introduction of new alleles from other, non-related members of the population, that’s a blatant red herring. We are discussing your claim that populations derived from small pools and subject to selective pressure wouldn’t get subsequent generations with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity. Nothing whatsoever to do with getting with more possible genetic variations or more diversity through related individuals or elsewhere.
As I said, once you concede that that populations derived from small pools and subject to selective pressure can get subsequent generations with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity then we can forget about wolves and poodles altogether.
I sure do wish the “reply” button would copy quotes within quotes, it would make this a whole lot easier.
Arguing with you is like herding cats. We’re so far off the original statement that it looks like you completely forgot what we were talking about to begin with. Let’s go back to your original response, shall we?
Now. Kindly explain to me how it’s possible for one human being “identical in every way to modern humans” can carry all the genes present in humankind today in one set of DNA. When you enlighten me on that, we’ll talk further. Otherwise you’re having a different argument than I am.
This whole discussion stems from this sole point. It is simply not possible for one human to carry all possible alleles for every trait coded for in the human race, it’s just not.
Now, if you’re retracting your statement, or if I misunderstood you, and you were simply saying that they were “normal” humans with the smallest possible amount of homozygosity and that the species has evolved from there, well then… okay. End of discussion.
raindog, I see what you mean. Even when I’m agreeing with him the guy wants to argue.
The main problem I see here is sloppy use of terminology.
Regarding hemophilia (we’ll assume hemophilia A), we can say the following:
The gene in question is the gene for factor VIII, located at Xq28.
There is presumably at least one wild-type (fully functional) allele for FVIII.
As of 1999, the database of hemophilia A mutations listed 309 different single-base substitutions, 92 large deletions, 77 small deletions, 28 insertions, and a single prevalent intron recombinative event resulting in three types of inversions in intron 22 of FVIII. So we have at least 309 + 92 + 77 + 28 + 3 = 509 hemophilia-associated alleles.
The term “hemophilia gene” is presumably simply a shorthand umbrella term that encompasses all 509+ defective FVIII alleles.
Now, relating this back to the original statement that started this all, are we proposing that Adam and Eve, between them, carried copies of all 510+ alleles of factor VIII? Eve (presumably) had two X chromosomes, Adam had (again, presumably) one. Each X chromosome could carry one allele of FVIII; where did they keep the other 507+?
You seem to be using the terms “gene” and “allele” interchangeably, which I think is the root of the confusion here. Doubtless poodles lack alleles of certain genes which are found in the wolf population. I’d be surprised if poodles actually lacked any genes which are found in the wolf population.
More sloppy usage. If an allele has vanished a particular form of a given gene has vanished. The gene itself has not vanished. Having everyone with hemophilia die off before reproducing doesn’t cause the FVIII gene to disappear, it causes the particular non-functional FVIII mutation to disappear.
That’s not what NajaNivea is saying. Properly speaking, HbS is a mutation (a single-base substitution on the beta-globin gene). The problem with using terms like “sickle-cell gene” is that it sounds like there’s an entirely separate gene product, unassociated with the beta-globin gene, that causes the disease, rather than a mutation in the beta chain itself.
You need to be more specific in your hypothetical here. You postulate a total population of two wolves, “both of which carry the sickle cell gene and both of which express the sickle cell phenotype”. Now–do you mean that both wolves are both homozygous for HbSS (sickle cell disease phenotype) or heterozygous (sickle trait phenotype)?
If both individuals are homozygous for HbS, then barring a very fortunate random mutation, genetic engineering, or reactivating some of the fetal/embryonic beta-chain analogues, how would other forms of the beta-globin chain enter the gene pool?
If both (or even one) of them were heterozygous, you could eventually select out only the HbAA individuals (although it would take a few generations), but that’s obvious.
That’s pretty obvious, but using “gene” and “allele” interchangeably simply causes confusion.
Thank you for being so thorough in your explanation of the steps that lead to disfellowshipping. I understand that the witness who is being counseled goes through several ordered steps before being disfellowshipped. I understand how the counseling and shunning process is designed to protect the congregation as a whole from corruption. I know from growing up with Witnesses and from Robert’s example that disfellowshipping is never a surprise to a Witness, and that he or she is fully aware of the expectations of the elders. As far as punitive processes go, the progression of disfellowshipping is fair, to be sure. However, the end result is the social, familial, and emotional death of the shunned. What is left is a husk of an awkward, timid, incompetent person who is ill prepared to survive in the World with the rest of us.
Jehovah’s Witnesses attended the public schools in the small Virginia town that I grew up in. In elementary school the kids seemed shy and awkward, and kept to themselves, even when a young member had no fellow parishioners in the same grade to pal around with. Except for one: my best friend from 3rd to 7th grade was JW. Angela’s parents had gone to school with my mother, and trusted my family to respect their beliefs and allowed Angela to come over (though infrequently) to play and for sleep-overs, but her visits to my house were kept a secret from her other JW classmates. I loved that little girl, and was grateful that her parents were fearless enough to allow her to associate with me and my family. So from personal experience, I am aware that some individual Witnesses are a little less rigid than others, and some are a little less reluctant to take part in Worldy pursuits.
But Robert’s church is in a more lively college town, and the church strongly encourages members to home school, remain isolated from outside influence inasmuch as possible, and does encourage mothers to stay home. The three or four Jehovah’s Witness members that I have encountered at various jobs have been extremely reserved and reluctant to participate in any social activities related to work, and seem awkward, uncomfortable, and … joyless. JW’s are left floundering and confused when discussions of current events and politics arise (in the field of social work, politics, both local and federal, figure heavily into our duties). Again, I realize that my perception of secular life for a Witness is colored by my own very different life experience, but since Robert has shared some of his feelings and experiences with me, the Witness lifestyle very nearly mirrors Shirley Jackson’s short story The Lottery. After a lifetime of isolation from the rest of the world, after a lifetime of rejecting friendships and associations with people of other beliefs, (which is the majority of our population here- there are only three JW churches in a 75 mile radius), after a lifetime of being counseled that associations with the majority of people in the world will bring harm and shame to a Witness, a Witness truly no choice but to remain with the church, no matter his or her unhappiness, doubt, disillusion, or in Robert’s case: misery. Because isolation from others is so strongly ordered, because separation from modern mores and habits is deigned necessary for the purity of the congregation, the rest of the modern world remains a wilderness to a Witness. Disfellowshipping effectively ends an apostate’s life- I shudder to think of the sheer terror that one must feel to be utterly alone and effectively dead to his or her loved ones.
How can one be certain that Witnesses remain with the church out of love for the faith instead of fear and intimidation at the alternative?
Beaucarnea
Thanks for your reply. While we disagree, I appreciate your measured tone. I plan to post again in the next day or so as time allows, but for now I’d like to respond to the Shirley Jackson Story, which I read completely.
So I understand the contrasts…
In the story the people are fictional; yet your friend and his experience are quite real.
In the story, the people carry on a tradition that they know very little about. In fact, it has gone on so long that few know or remember why they’re even doing it; however you would be hard pressed to find a JW who would be unable to show you the biblical basis for counsel, for keeping the congregation free from reproach, and the biblical basis for the disfellowshipping. Far from being clueless, the average JW has a firm command of the texts in question and can easily use the bible to support his/her beliefs. (on a wide range of topics)
In the story, the “victim” is chosen completely at random, through a lottery. In fact, the only “crime” that the victim commits is being chosen from a group of names in a completly random fashion; yet a JW who is disfellowshipped is never chosen at random; never disfellowshipped capriciously, and never without many opportunities for change.
*
In the story, “justice” is determined by the most capricious way possible—through a lottery. Worse yet, justice is executed (pun intended) by the whole congregation, who appear to take joy in killing someone*; among JWs, being disfellowshipped must be done by a committee of 3 mature men who must be in complete agreement. Furthermore, those men involve the brother/sister in every step of the way, keeping them fully informed and explaining from the bible the basis for their actions while offering encouragement, support and guidance. By your own words, this process is never a surprise, [biblical] expectations are clear, and the process is fair. (there is even an “appeals” process if someone feels that the outcome was unjust) Hardly the same as drawing a name out of a hat. More importantly, the congregation grieves when someone is disfellowshipped. There is no joy, no satisfaction, no happiness.
In the story, a person is stoned to death, in a gruesome, macabre, deranged fashion; a disfellowshipped person is quite alive and has been told directly by the committee that they are still welcome at the meetings and encouraged to attend. In fact, there is no “time” requirement—if a person makes the necessary changes and shows through their actions that they wish to once again to be part of the congregation they are welcomed back with open arms; witout a single word ever being said about it going forward. Being disfellowshipped is hard to be sure; it’s hard on the person, it’s hard on their loved ones, it’s hard on the congregation. But I trust you won’t insult your intelligence or mine by drawing a metaphor that suggests that disfellowshipping (by a committee of 3 mature men who will keep the strictest of confidences) is the equivalent of being viciously attacked by a bloodthirsty congregation and brutally murdered.
In the story, the “victim” has no control over his/her outcome. No decision on the part of the victim can change the outcome. It’s a purely random, and capricious process; yet among JWs negative consequences are quite avoidable. In fact, long before a JW is baptized, and formally becomes a JW, extensive studying is done and all of these are discussed. A person who is disfellowshipped is not only never surprised at being disfellowshipped, they’re fully aware of this process before they’re baptized! In fact, no part of this is arcane, none of it! A JW knows the biblical basis for it, knows the mechanics of it, knows the practical application and is counseled on how one should view those who are disfellowshipped. It’s the equivalent of teaching them how to ensure that their name can be kept out of the tattered wooden box.
In the story, there is no redemption, no second chance; the "judgement is final; yet a person who is disfellowshipped------who by necessity had to reject repeated encouragement, counsel, and biblical direction-----has every opportunity for a second chance. Everyone is thinking about them, grieving for them, hoping in them, and [silently] rooting for them. There is every opportunity to redeem the situation and start fresh.
This story has no relevance that I can see. It fails in almost every conceivable
way.
Being disfellowshipped is difficult to be sure. But it seems to me that you are overstaing your case here, by a wide margin. JWs live in the world, they are friends, workmates, and classmates. It is entirely true that they are an insular society; that witnesses are encouraged to use discretion in their friendships and associations. The practical result of this is that most witnesses have witnesses as their closest friends and associations.
I am a witness. My closest friends are witnesses, and they are the people I choose as my closest asssociations. Nonetheless, I have other friends that I know from work, and other places that I count as friends. In this regard, I choose to not have friends who use [extensive] profanity, make off-color or racial comments and jokes, show a lack of integrity, are cheats, liars etc etc. You may find that to be sinister, but many other groups are insular. I have afluent customers who live in afluent neighborhoods whose lives are stunning in their lack of diversity. It is their choice. You may see it as horrible, but ‘birds of a feather, do flock togeher.’
I would have to disagree with your assesments. Surely some who are disfellowshipped struggle. You may desribe Robert as an “awkward, timid, incompetent person who is ill prepared to survive in the World”, but for some who are disfellowshipped no such thing happens. (and to the extent it may have happened with Robert, it is likely it is/was a result of personality, not his faith. I believe you ascribe too many things to the FW faith that are really the pecularities of human beings) While some grieve—and find themselves stuck between the congregation (which they are at least temporarily not an active part of) and the world they feel little kinship with, many others put on their party dress and hit the town. I know many former JWs who left and never missed a beat. Among many others, they go about their day to day lives as they did before. They go to work, maintain friendships and go about their lives. Many/most begin the process of brining their lives back into harmony with biblical principles. I don’t think you give humans (in this case Robert) credit for having a will. Those who return are never “forced” into anything. Robert considers his life as a JW superior to the alternative. You maintain that he is serving Jehovah out of fear and intimidation, I say respectfully you don’t know what you are talking about. Interestingly enough, Robert disagrees with you as well. In your own words, you note that Robert defends the practice—a practice he ultimately experienced.
I don’t believe you are familiar with how congregations are governed in practical terms. With all due respect, this is not true. JWs are a highly centralized (the merits of which are another discussion entirely) organization. The bible is used in every discussion, whether that is from the platform, or in private counsel. Further, the organization publishes many articles on a wide range of topics that serve as guideposts. At any rate, while the doctrine/direction is highly centralized, it is also highly focused. JW elders have very little latitude to offer their personal insights. (unlike most churches where the priest/pastor is seen a a spiritual mentor, if not sage) There is no biblical principle as it relates to homeschooling. Homeschooling is a decision made by parents and it is not the purview of the congregation. It would be highly inappropriate for a group of elders to offer this type of [personal] advice. It simply wouldn’t be done. As noted in this thread already, it is a very consistent message, worldwide.It would be unheard of for the church to “encourage” the member to homeschool, isolate themselves or for mothers to stay home. **This is simply not true.
**
That’s surely a scientific sample that would be representative of all JWs. :dubious: Yet, in this thread, and many others, many people have desribed JWs that they have known who were bright engaging, caring, empathetic, and a pleasure to be around. Didn’t you and I “meet” in a thread where a witness was described as talented, diverse, engaging and socially comfortable?
Do you work in a large organization; and, do you make policy? Does your job require you to interface with the federal or local government for funding etc?
It seems to me that much of your frustration with JWs is that they’re not leading the lives you think they ought to. I know many, many people who are *blissfully *ignorant about most topics, including most of the SDMB members it would seem.
Most JWs have very little interest in politics, for the obvious reasons. And this has them “floundering and confused”? Unless you’re making policy for Catholic Social Services, (or the like) you’re knowledge of politics of politics is for your own edification. Please share with me exactly what these JW’s duties are and how their willful ignorance of local and national politics affects their job and performace.
See my post above.
This is not true either. Ihave never heard “counseled that associations with the majority of people in the world will bring harm and shame to a Witness.” (see my definition of “never heard” in my earlier post)
With all due respect, this is laughable. With all due repect, I believe you know very little about JWs, in spite of your association with Robert. It seems to me that either somone has been lying to you, or you are taking what you know, and making inferences from that; most of which are simply not an accurate representation of what life is like for the average JW.
I’d be interested in knowing specifically what “mores and habits” you’re talking about. JWs go to parties, movies, the theater, festivals. They go boating, fishing; they travel; they read books, the newspapers, they have cable TV, email and the internet. They spend time with their families. I know many who are accomplished musicians. They have a wide range of interests. (I’m 2 years into a series of classes at a local university on Stellar Astronomy, and looking to start classes on piano next year)
Please share with me how the “modern world” is a “wilderness” to a JW.
Don’t know. I do know that I’ve been associated with JWs for 25 years in one way or another, and have been a JW for 13 of them. I have never, and I mean never, heard a current of former JW say that they felt fear or intimidation. Based on the little you’ve shared about Robert, it is highly unlikely that he’s ever felt intimidation.
