Awake!, June 8, 1981

Awake! — June 8, 1981

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

Is It Good or Bad to Be Superstitious?

World War III—Can Anybody Stop It?

Technology Drives the World Toward War

Mounting World Tension—The Causes

Hope of Escaping World Destruction

Marriage By Go-Between—Can It Bring True Happiness?

“Time Theft” Expensive

What Did Darwin Really Find on the Galápagos?

“One Standard Lifespan”—Except for Man

Why Are They Leaving the Church of Sweden?

“Doomsday Clock” Moved Ahead

Crossword Puzzle

Turkish Courts Uphold Freedom of Worship for Jehovah’s Witnesses

From Our Readers

Watching the World

Easy-to-Read Bible in Large Print

You Are Invited To Attend: The “Kingdom Loyalty” District Convention Of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Page Two

The arms race has taken a sinister new turn in recent years. Military officials are talking more about “winning” nuclear wars. “Détente” seems to have vanished from the world’s political vocabulary. Suddenly, World War III seems very possible. What happened? What does the future hold?

5 WORLD WAR III—CAN ANYBODY STOP IT?

TECHNOLOGY DRIVES THE WORLD TOWARD WAR

MOUNTING WORLD TENSION—THE CAUSES

HOPE OF ESCAPING WORLD DESTRUCTION

Is It Good or Bad to Be Superstitious?

Have You Ever Wondered . . .

Is It Good or Bad to Be Superstitious?

DO YOU know someone who is afraid to walk under a ladder, or who touches wood to ward off bad luck? Why is it that some hotels have no floor or room numbered 13? Why did British Admiral Nelson have a horseshoe nailed to the mast of the ship “Victory”? Why do many persons wear or carry amulets or other “charms”? The answer is that all these people were, or are, superstitious.

HAVE SCIENCE AND CIVILIZATION ELIMINATED SUPERSTITION?

Superstition is a blindly accepted belief or notion. Seventy years ago, when the advances of science were exposing many blindly accepted beliefs, the noted “Encyclopædia Britannica” foretold that the future would bring “a civilization freed from the last ghost of superstition.”

Yet that forecast never came true. Even though science and so-called civilization have caused some persons to be less superstitious, a more current edition of the same encyclopedia admits: “There are few people who, if pressed, would not admit to cherishing secretly one or two irrational beliefs, or superstitions.” Today, even highly skilled and no-nonsense pilots of huge jet airliners reportedly “frequently cross unused seat belts prior to takeoff, or spit on a wheel after their preflight inspection.” All of this is because of superstition.

Why do such superstitions still linger? “Superstitions are one of life’s better props against doubt, anxiety and insecurity,” says Dr. Edward Hornick, professor of psychiatry in New York. Additionally, other authorities consider superstitions to be “a mistaken fear of the Divinity” or “any misdirection of religious feeling.” Such feelings run deep.

CAN SUPERSTITIONS BE DANGEROUS?

They certainly can. One authority states: “It would be impossible to estimate how many people have been hanged or burned as adults or drowned in infancy, . . . because of superstition.” Yes, superstition has bred intolerance and has mothered witchcraft, magic, astrology and other occult practices.

However, since such abuses as hanging or burning because of superstition are rare today, many see no harm in being superstitious. Yet one man who nailed a horseshoe over his front door for good luck highlighted a subtle danger of being superstitious. He confessed: “I know it’s foolish, and I don’t believe it, but you’d be surprised how well it works.” Yes, he got to the point that there was a reliance on his good-luck charm. During World War II, a bomber gunner who survived when his plane was shot down, betrayed a similar trust. He pointed to a small brass doll hanging on his pocket and admitted: “I’m not superstitious, but this lucky gremlin sure brought us through one of the closest scrapes we ever had.” Did it? How many persons died in warfare while clutching a good-luck charm?

Many persons, feeling secure because of a good-luck charm or because of following a certain superstition, take needless risks. Reliance on their good-luck charm actually becomes a snare.

Yet there is an even greater danger to those who are superstitious.

DOES BEING SUPERSTITIOUS HINDER TRUE WORSHIP?

A whole nation at one time worshiped Jehovah God properly, but something happened. At Isaiah 65:11 the Bible says about these people: “You men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny.”

When these Jews began to depend on “the god of Good Luck,” they were turning away from Jehovah. Though they still carried on a form of worship at his temple, it was only a ritual, for in their hearts they honored the “god of Good Luck.” Because of this, Jehovah said he would ‘destine these ones to the sword.’ (Isa. 65:12) The fulfillment of these words resulted in a national catastrophe when Jehovah no longer protected the nation from attack by mighty ancient Babylon in 607 B.C.E. The Jews’ “god of Good Luck” failed to prevent the city of Jerusalem from being totally destroyed. So, by being superstitious, a person turns away from proper faith in and reliance on the Almighty God. This can bring his disfavor and leave one without any genuine help in these difficult times.

But what if being superstitious has become a habit?

HOW CAN ONE BREAK FREE FROM SUPERSTITIONS?

The way to break free is to develop a genuine faith in God so that a person can ‘set his confidence in God,’ not in some good-luck charm or superstition. The Bible tells how to do this. At Psalm 78:4-7 it mentions the “wonderful things that [God] has done,” and then urges true worshipers to relate these to the next generation so that these “might set their confidence in God himself and not forget the practices of God but observe his own commandments.” Yes, discussing what God has done, his mighty acts and his care for his people, can build real faith. A person can learn to rely then on the true God and his help and not have to feel the need to follow some superstition.

Many of the “wonderful things that [God] has done” are recorded in the Bible. For this reason, a sincere study of it is the best way to develop genuine faith. No doubt you feel as did the apostles of Jesus Christ who asked of him: “Give us more faith.” (Luke 17:5) Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing to help you to study the Bible in a systematic way, completely without obligation or charge. Why not contact them locally, or write the publishers of this magazine?

“If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:31, 32.

World War III—Can Anybody Stop It?

“FOR the love of God, of your children, and of the civilization to which you belong, cease this madness!” These impassioned words were recently addressed to the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, which are presently engaged in the greatest arms race in history. The speaker was no ill-informed alarmist. He was George F. Kennan, former United States ambassador to Moscow.

“No one will understand the danger we are all in today,” pointed out Mr. Kennan, “unless he recognizes that governments in this modern world have not yet learned how to create and cultivate great military establishments, particularly those that include the weapons of mass destruction, without becoming the servants rather than the masters of what they have created.”

Many others agree with Mr. Kennan in his bleak assessment of present-day world politics. An official of the People’s Republic of China observed that war between the superpowers “is inevitable,” adding: “The next 10 years are very, very dangerous. They are frightful. We should never forget this fact.”

Why All the Alarm?

For the past several years there has been much talk about “détente,” or a lessening of tensions between the world’s superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. During this period many people got the impression that world war was becoming less likely. The first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty was signed between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972, followed by the signing of SALT II in 1979, and people talked hopefully of “a generation of peace.”

No longer. “Not for thirty years has political tension reached so dangerous a point as it has attained today,” pointed out Mr. Kennan late in 1980, just 18 months after the SALT II treaty was signed. “Not in all this time has there been so high a degree of misunderstanding, of suspicion, of bewilderment, and of sheer military fear.”

What has created the tension? Why does World War III, once thought distant, suddenly loom so near? Political, economic and technological factors are all involved. They are converging to create an arms race that experts fear cannot be stopped. Yet, unless it is stopped, many say this arms race can only lead to war.

“Modern history offers no example of the cultivation by rival powers of armed force on a huge scale that did not in the end lead to an outbreak of hostilities,” warns Mr. Kennan. “And there is no reason to believe that we are greater, or wiser, than our ancestors.”

Why can the arms race not be stopped?

In the beginning of the nuclear age, missiles were not very accurate. They could be counted on to hit very large targets, like cities, but not small targets, like enemy missile silos. The result was what Winston Churchill called the “balance of terror.” Both sides targeted their missiles on each other’s cities, establishing, in effect, an exchange of hostages. Both sides knew that starting nuclear war would mean the loss of their own cities.

This strategic doctrine, known as Mutual Assured Destruction (or, appropriately, MAD), may have helped to prevent an early outbreak of World War III for one major reason. It did not matter which side struck first. Nuclear war would still be disastrous for both sides. So there was less incentive to drop the first bomb in former times of tension, such as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Technology Drives the World Toward War

Technology has changed the old “balance of terror.” The missiles of today are much more accurate than before. So they are not just aimed at cities anymore. A great many of them are aimed at other missiles. Vastly improved computer-controlled guidance systems have caused the change in targeting. The result? Mutual Assured Destruction has been replaced in military thinking with counterforce strategies in which, theoretically, nuclear wars are no longer deterred but fought and won.

But how can either side hope to win a nuclear war? By striking first and destroying not an enemy’s cities but his missiles. Then, according to the theory, the enemy is at the mercy of the side striking first and must submit to whatever ultimatum is imposed.

Does this kind of thinking sound dangerous to you? It does to many experts. “The more the two great powers come to rely on counterforce strategies the greater is the probability of nuclear world war,” says Dr. Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “The dilemma of the nuclear age is that, despite the desire of political leaderships to avoid such a war, we are being driven towards it by uncontrolled military technology.”

During the 1980’s, as more and more missiles are made accurate enough for counterforce use, the world will get more and more dangerous. As the New York Times pointed out, Robert McNamara, U.S. secretary of defense back in the 1960’s, “opposed making American nuclear forces capable of threatening Soviet ones. If one or both the superpowers thought its missiles had become vulnerable to a surprise attack, he argued, pressures for launching them in a crisis would become almost irresistible.” Mr. McNamara’s nightmare is nearing reality.

Could counterforce thinking really help to drive the world to war? Recent history argues that it certainly could. Consider the aftermath of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 in which the United States, Japan and Great Britain agreed to limit their construction of battleships. Rather than stopping the arms race, the treaty “encouraged the emergence of the aircraft carrier, a new weapon neglected by the battleship admirals then dominating every major navy,” observes political science professor Charles Fairbanks. “As Pearl Harbor made clear, the aircraft carrier was a weapon that, as compared with the battleship, encouraged striking first in a crisis, and therefore somewhat increased the chances of war.”

Like modern missiles, aircraft carriers were vulnerable to enemy attack because of not possessing the thick armor of battleships and being loaded with gasoline. Like modern missiles, aircraft carriers were very effective when used by the side striking the first blow with its planes, while keeping the carrier itself at a safe distance. In 1941, as relations deteriorated between the United States and Japan, the pressure to get in the first blow became irresistible to the Japanese. What will happen if relations continue to deteriorate between the United States and the Soviet Union? Will history repeat itself?

Lasers, Satellites and False Alarms

Not once but three times in less than a year a computer reported that Soviet missiles were headed toward America. Immediately the crews of FB-111 and B-52 bombers started their engines, while the U.S. fleet of nuclear submarines was placed on alert, as were the crews of America’s 1,000 Minuteman missile silos. Each time, the computer report was found to be false. Twice the erroneous alert was traced to a small, 46-cent electronic circuit. The bombers, submarines and missile crews were told to stand down . . . until next time.

“What is failing here is not gadgetry, but sanity,” commented the New York Times. Some military men no longer feel that they can afford to wait until suspected missiles actually arrive before retaliating. As a result, the danger of false alarms provoking genuine counterattacks is growing. In the jumpy world of counterforce thinking, World War III could start simply by mistake. Not very reassuring, is it?

Technology is destabilizing the military world in other ways as well. Here are a few of them:

Submarine Warfare: Not only are land-based missiles becoming accurate enough to destroy other missiles, but submarine missiles, such as those for America’s new Trident fleet, are acquiring the same high accuracy. Also, both the United States and the Soviet Union are working hard on all types of antisubmarine sensors and “hunter-killer” submarines. But what if nuclear submarines should become vulnerable to a “first strike”? “The temptation to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike will then become well nigh irresistible,” according to Dr. Barnaby.

Satellite Warfare: Satellites are the eyes and ears of today’s military establishments. In this jittery age they provide the earliest possible warning of enemy missile launches, as well as make verification possible for arms treaties. Between 70 and 80 percent of all military communications are now routed through satellites. Since satellites are becoming so important, “an attack on a nation’s satellites would almost surely lead to an all-out nuclear strike since its intelligence-gathering capability would be crippled,” according to some observers. Is such an attack possible?

“Off and on over the past 12 years, the Soviet Union has orbited at least 15 hunter-killer satellites,” says a report in Science 80 magazine. The United States, in turn, is developing an antisatellite missile that can be fired from an F-15 fighter. Especially ominous are new types of weapons that could instantly blind or destroy satellites even in very distant orbits. What kinds of weapons are these?

Science Fiction? Think Again

If you think the idea of a ray gun that could destroy a missile in flight is part of science fiction, think again. Such weapons already exist! Since 1973 lasers have been knocking planes and missiles out of the air in tests. The United States Air Force has equipped a cargo plane with a massive experimental laser beam for tests at high altitudes. Over a billion dollars has been spent by the Americans alone on laser-weapon development, and it is claimed that the Soviets are equally advanced.

True, it might be a long time before a ground-based laser beam could shoot down a high-altitude satellite. Such a laser would require enormous amounts of energy. On the other hand, “much more modest amounts of energy . . . can blind the infrared sensors of a satellite,” observes New Scientist magazine, “leaving your opponent with no way to monitor the launch of your missiles.” Lasers with this much power are already quite feasible, adding another uncertainty to a nervous world.

Of course, this by no means exhausts the list of destabilizing advances in military technology. Cruise missiles, which, although slow, are far more accurate than any ICBM, can be considered a counterforce weapon. They are well suited to attack small military targets. A “neutron bomb” has been designed to kill people with radiation while destroying relatively little property. New, “improved” nerve gas is being advocated by some military authorities, although nerve gas has been outlawed in warfare since 1925! There is also talk of Biological Warfare, using germs such as anthrax. But technology is not the only thing pushing the world toward World War III.

Mounting World Tension—The Causes

In September 1979, a United States satellite monitored a bright double flash near South Africa. Such a flash is characteristic of a nuclear explosion. Was South Africa testing nuclear weapons? The South African government denies it, but South Africa has never signed the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Israel is another nonsigner of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Back in 1974 the president of Israel stated: “It has always been our intention to provide the potential for nuclear weapons development. We now have that potential.”

Nor is that all. “Administration intelligence specialists believe that in five years a variety of nations, including Taiwan, South Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina, could join the six or seven existing members of the so-called ‘nuclear arms club,”’ reports the New York Times.

What is especially ominous about the coming decade is not merely the almost inevitable spread of atomic weapons, but the countries to which those weapons will likely spread. Many of these nations consider themselves to be surrounded by powerful enemies. “States that feel beleaguered, such as Israel and Taiwan, tend increasingly to view an atomic-weapon capability as the ultimate deterrent to any attack from hostile forces,” observes U.S. News & World Report. Such nations could hardly be counted upon to use nuclear restraint in a crisis.

Can nuclear proliferation be stopped? It is doubtful. There is just too much plutonium around from which bombs can be made, and the know-how to make the bombs is easily obtainable. A recent report of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation panel gloomily implied “that there is no technical solution to the problem of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to countries which do not now have them.”—Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Where did all the plutonium come from? “So far, a total of 100,000 kilograms of plutonium, in an unprocessed state, has been accumulated from civilian nuclear reactors,” SIPRI points out. It only takes a few kilograms of plutonium to make a bomb like the one that destroyed Nagasaki! As developing countries turn to atomic energy in an oil-short world, they wind up with the basic stuff of atomic bombs as a by-product.

Could a developing country really build an atom bomb if the plutonium were available? In 1978 a United States college student made headlines by designing a workable atomic bomb from declassified documents available to anyone for $25. Experts agreed that the bomb “would have a very good chance of working.” If an undergraduate could do it, why couldn’t an underdeveloped country?

Cooperation or Confrontation?

Experts are warning that a world with more nuclear nations will be increasingly unstable, “a world of considerable fears and deep uncertainty,” as nuclear proliferation specialist Joseph Nye of Harvard puts it. A check on this instability would be increased cooperation between the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Is such cooperation likely? In a world of scarce resources, many feel it is not.

The United States now imports over 40 percent of its petroleum. Many American allies must import even larger percentages—90 percent in the case of France and 97 percent for the Federal Republic of Germany. These nations have made it clear that they are willing to risk war in order to protect their oil supplies. The result? Oil-producing areas of the globe, such as the Persian Gulf, are witnessing intense military rivalry between the superpowers—a very dangerous situation.

Commenting on the danger of World War III starting in the Middle East, Richard Falk observed that “general wars in the past have always occurred when a great power tries to compensate for economic and political decline by recourse to decisive military means.”—The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1979.

In other words, trying to solve economic problems with military buildups leads to war. A recent example was the Japanese “solution” to the American embargoes on vital oil supplies in 1941. “Dismay at the embargo drove the Japanese naval command . . . into collusion with the army’s extremism.” (Encyclopædia Britannica) The result? Pearl Harbor.

Can the world afford another Pearl Harbor?

Oil is not the only thing on which the United States is short. “Imports account for more than half of the sources of 23 strategic materials consumed by U.S. industry,” says U.S. News & World Report, adding: “What’s worse, most of these minerals come from politically unstable countries in sub-Saharan Africa.” The U.S. must import 89 percent of its platinum (used in processing crude oil), 90 percent of its chromium (used in armor for tanks) and 98 percent of its manganese (used in making high-strength alloys). Each vital commodity in short supply represents a potential conflict, should the supply be threatened.

Shortage No Surprise to Some

Before World War II, the United States produced more petroleum than the rest of the world’s countries put together. At that time it was common to speak of America’s limitless mineral wealth. Few people foresaw that in several brief decades America would be unable to supply her needs for most strategic materials. Careful students of the Bible, however, saw trouble coming.

In the book “Your Will Be Done on Earth,”a published back in 1958, the Soviet Union was identified with the “king of the north,” mentioned in Daniel chapter 11. “The king of the south,” also mentioned in that chapter, was identified with the so-called free world, led by the United States and Great Britain. This chapter of Bible prophecy describes a competition between these two symbolic kings, in this language:

“And in the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him [the king of the north] in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships . . . And he [the king of the north] will actually rule over the hidden treasures of the gold and the silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt.”—Dan. 11:40, 43.

What did this mean? The book “Your Will Be Done on Earth” made this very interesting Bible-based prediction over 22 years ago:

“How far the king of the north will have got when he reaches his ‘time of the end’ the future alone will tell. But he is predicted to gain control over the treasures of gold, silver and all the precious things of this commercialized, materialistic world, including oil.”—Page 303.

Today the Soviet Union is one of the very few industrialized nations that does not need to import oil. The Soviet Union also controls vast deposits of the very strategic minerals that the “king of the south” needs desperately. No wonder world politics in recent years have been characterized by a “pushing” match between the superpowers!

[Footnotes]

a Published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

[Picture on page 9]

If a college student could develop a workable atomic bomb, why couldn’t even a small country do the same?

Hope of Escaping World Destruction

Will this nationalistic “pushing” match result in World War III? Possibly. The world political situation certainly looks hopeless from a human point of view. But there is another point of view to be considered.

Just as God’s Word correctly predicted the present tense world situation, it also predicts the outcome. Without specifying whether or not the present arms race will touch off World War III, it does make this statement about our times:

“But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give their reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”—Rev. 11:18.

Economic greed and pollution are already “ruining the earth,” and God has plenty of reason to put an end to those responsible for such things, even without the added ruination that a third world war might bring. Still, in view of this prophecy, even if a global war should break out, God would never let it totally ruin this beautiful globe, which he created to be the home of humankind, not its graveyard.—Isa. 45:18.

The Bible even has a name for the symbolic battle in which God Almighty puts an end, once and for all, to present-day nationalism, militarism and war. Its symbolic location is called “Armageddon” in the “King James Bible,” known as the Authorized Version.—Rev. 16:14, 16.

“Armageddon?” You may ask, “But are not Armageddon and World War III the same thing?” The answer is NO!

Newspaper pundits may use the word “Armageddon” out of its Biblical context to refer to World War III and nuclear destruction, but the Bible indicates a strikingly different meaning for this term. The Bible describes this battle in Revelation chapter 19, not as a fight among earthly nations, but as a fight between all those nations and heavenly armies under the command of “The Word of God,” Jesus Christ.—Rev. 19:11-21.

Armageddon is not the consequence of nuclear war. It is the solution to nuclear war, a solution imposed by the only One powerful enough to enforce his will on this violent, gun-toting system of things. Armageddon will not result in smoking craters of radioactive debris. Instead, the result will be a “new earth,” cleansed of all forms of wickedness, including arms races. Consider this heartwarming promise:

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth . . . with that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: ‘Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.”’—Rev. 21:1, 3.

What will happen to the arms race in this new earth? To Armageddon survivors, used to ever-growing munitions outlays, the change will be astonishing. God’s Word states:

“Come, you people, behold the activities of Jehovah, how he has set astonishing events on the earth. He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire.”—Ps. 46:8, 9.

Can anybody stop world destruction? No human powers can. Only one Person in the entire universe can save us out of it, and he will. If you get to know him now, you can escape destruction, not by World War III, but at the hands of Jehovah God, who will soon “crush and put an end to” the world system so near to ruining our planet.—Dan. 2:44.

Marriage By Go-Between—Can It Bring True Happiness?

By “Awake!” correspondent in Japan

WHILE having her hair arranged for the wedding ceremony, Hiroko was crying. “You should not cry on your wedding day,” the beautician said angrily.

But Hiroko felt she was in love with someone other than the man her parents had chosen for her to marry. They insisted that she marry a man much older than herself. Hiroko accepted their decision as “fate.”

After the honeymoon her husband appeared so happy that she decided to cover her own feelings and at least act happily married for his sake and the sake of her parents.

You see, Hiroko’s parents had followed the age-old custom of many Eastern countries of using a go-between to provide a “proper” match for their daughter.

Marriage by Go-Between

It is only in relatively recent times in Japan that a nakōdo (go-between) has been used to arrange marriages, as young people began marrying outside their own villages. However, for many, the nakōdo has become a status symbol. It is a common view that the more important the go-between, the greater the assurance that the newlyweds will have a successful future. So a distinguished person in the community may participate in the wedding ceremony and have the title nakōdo even though a different person has arranged the marriage.

The job of the nakōdo is to arrange for the young people to meet. If all is well, he will also make the wedding plans.

The nakōdo chosen by Hiroko’s parents was a prominent older couple in the community. They arranged for “a marriage interview” with the prospective groom, Katsumi. Tea and cakes were served and the nakōdo couple and the parents left the room, allowing the young people to get to know each other better. Afterward, the nakōdo talked to each young person privately to see if they were interested in carrying the relationship any farther.

Here is one advantage of having a nakōdo. Since it is considered impolite in Japan to disagree point-blank with someone, a go-between is often used to refuse politely on behalf of the declining party. Hiroko’s family had encouraged her beforehand, and so when she was formally introduced to Katsumi they agreed to continue the relationship for the sake of their families.

Young people who move to the cities may find it harder to find a marriage mate without the aid of their parents. Therefore, they may decide to pay a fee to a marriage broker, who will search his files for a suitable mate. For example, employees of the Mitsubishi Company can pay a fee of 8,000 yen ($40, U.S.) and fill out forms, which are fed to the company’s official “go-between,” a computer. In one case a young man working in a New York office and a young woman in the Tokyo office were introduced by the computer “go-between” and met for the first time in Hawaii at their wedding!

Nowadays, it is not uncommon for young people to ask their friends for help in finding a marriage partner. Many times, traveling representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses are asked to introduce young people of like faith to each other. In some cases where a young man and a woman meet on their own and have interest in each other, it is not out of place for them to ask their parents for approval, whereupon a go-between will continue negotiations to arrange the marriage.

Perhaps those familiar with the Bible may recall the patriarch Abraham’s using a go-between to choose a wife for his son Isaac. The go-between soon found a young woman named Rebekah, who met the requirements set out by Isaac’s father. The Bible account says: “She became his wife; and he fell in love with her.” (Gen. 24:67) Often in Japan, too, love for each other comes with the passing of time after the wedding. A phrase summing up the sentiments of many Japanese goes like this: “Love matches start out hot and grow cold. Arranged marriages start out cold and grow hot.”

Wedding-Day Preparations

The wedding is an important family event and most families want it to make a favorable impression on relatives and friends. So weddings are becoming more and more expensive. An average couple will spend more than six million yen ($30,000). The wedding ceremony itself costs only about 18,000 yen ($90), with the average reception cost being 13,000 yen ($65) per person, and generally 70 to 80 guests are invited. It is not considered rude, however, to ask the guests to pay for themselves. After the dinner-reception, each guest carries home a large furoshiki (cloth carryall) of wedding gifts from the bride and groom.

Most couples rent their wedding attire from a company that deals exclusively in this. Custom has the bride wear a ceremonial long-sleeved kimono, adorned with cranes, tortoises and other symbols of good fortune and longevity. A large brocaded sash is tied in a butterfly knot to symbolize happiness. She wears a headdress known as tsuno kakushi, or horn concealer, which, when removed, is said to banish all future jealousy she might have for her husband.

Traditionally, grooms wear a formal black kimono with a divided skirt and short coat decorated with a family crest. Modern grooms may prefer a morning coat and striped trousers. The guests generally arrive in formal kimono dress.

At the Ceremony

Most weddings are performed by a Shinto priest. Only close family and the go-between and his wife attend this ceremony. The other guests will be met later at the reception. The Shinto priest first waves a large sprig of the sasaki tree as a purification rite. Next, he reads the norito (a Shinto prayer), reporting to the gods that he is going to unite these two in wedlock.

The main part of the ceremony involves the san-san-kudo, or vow-pledging cups. There are three nuptial cups of varying sizes and a pot containing consecrated sake (rice wine) taken from the altar. The miko (shrine maiden) hands the smallest cup to the groom first and pours three dashes of sake into it. The groom drinks the sake in three sips and hands the cup back to the miko. She now passes the cup to the bride, once again pouring into the cup a small amount of sake, which the bride drinks in three sips. The same formality is repeated with the other cups. The Japanese word san-san (three-three) can also mean birth after birth, which would make the san-san-kudo something of a fertility charm.

Lastly, the groom reads a written pledge (although in some cases the go-between will read it) and they offer sprigs of the sacred sasaki. Those present will receive a cup of sake and drink a toast, signifying the uniting of these two families by a marriage tie. Thus the 20-minute Shinto wedding ceremony comes to a close.

Buddhist weddings are similar, although less frequently held. There are also church wedding ceremonies in Japan.

Weddings Among Jehovah’s Witnesses

Compared to the above-mentioned ceremonies Jehovah’s Witnesses’ weddings are unique. The audience is filled with family and friends. A close friend of the bride and groom gives a heartwarming talk from the Bible. Usually he explains the origin of the marriage arrangement. Both are reminded that a key to a successful marriage is 100-percent cooperation, with earnest effort on the part of both husband and wife. No rituals are performed but the young couple and their guests get practical guidance from the Bible. (An example is Ephesians 5:22-33.)

In Japan, religious services performed on the wedding day are not recognized by the State. A person is not considered legally married until he has the Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Marriage from the ward or city office. However, most couples do want to have a religious ceremony of some type. While other religious organizations charge for their marriage services, among Jehovah’s Witnesses the presiding minister and others connected with the wedding arrangement offer their services without charge.

After the Wedding

Is it possible to be happily married if you find yourself the mate of someone you’ve been introduced to by a go-between? The woman mentioned in the beginning of our article says: “I went through the first years of my marriage thinking it was my ‘fate’ and somehow I must try to find some happiness.” Then a change took place. She explains: “When we both began studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses and got baptized, I felt truly happy that I had married him.”

But not all married couples experience this happiness. Since 1963, the divorce rate has been rising steadily in Japan, although it is still lower than in most countries. A Health and Welfare Ministry survey reported that 55.3 percent of the divorces were demanded by the wife, despite the fact that only 2.7 percent of them received any alimony. Besides incompatibility, infidelity and economic reasons, the inability to communicate and the lack of consideration were listed as the bases for most divorces.

Might proper instruction help to overcome some of these problems? Says a woman who was married in a church in Japan: “When I think back on it, I was not expecting to find real enjoyment in my marriage. We felt it would be showing weakness on our part if we asked for outside help to solve any of our problems. But after our daughter was born, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door. When I began to study the Bible with them, for the first time I learned what marriage is all about—that cooperation with my husband is necessary for a happy household. The ‘two-become-one-flesh’ principle had a big influence in every aspect of our family life. I learned that there truly is more happiness in giving than in receiving.” (Matt. 19:4, 5) Proper instruction from the Bible has been a definite aid to this household.

How about you? Would you consider using a go-between in choosing a mate? Or will you wait until you fall in love and marry someone of your own choice? Each has advantages, but neither guarantees happiness. For a truly happy marriage you need guidance from the “happy God,” Jehovah, the originator of the marriage arrangement.—1 Tim. 1:11.

[Picture on page 12]

Traditional Japanese wedding attire

[Picture on page 13]

“Horn concealer” headdress

“Time Theft” Expensive

“Time theft” practices by employees cost Canadian business some $10 billion in 1980, according to a study done by Robert Half Agencies, Inc. The figure is an estimate based upon projections from findings by the agency in 1977 when the cost was set at $8 billion.

Gillian Shaw, Vancouver “Sun” business writer, reports that the study pointed out that an average of 3.5 hours per worker per week were lost to such practices as Friday and Monday absenteeism, employees being late for work, talking on the job, making personal telephone calls and taking extended lunch periods. The agency’s president likened such “time theft” to the crime of shoplifting.

Extremes of what he termed “planned time theft” included that involving persons who operate various businesses of their own on company time, even using company stationery and its business address to conduct their private enterprises.

Even the coffee break is abused by many, though it is itself a concession made by business after finding out it could not stamp out that form of “time theft” in years gone by.

The Christian worker who conscientiously applies the Bible counsel of Ephesians 4:28 will not be a cause of such tremendous loss, the cost of which eventually must be borne by all.

What Did Darwin Really Find on the Galápagos?

NEARLY 150 years ago, English naturalist Charles Darwin briefly visited the Galápagos Islands. On these Pacific Ocean islands, located some 600 miles (1,000 km) west of Ecuador, Darwin felt that he had found evidence of his theory of evolution.

But what, really, did he find on the Galápagos? Was it evidence of evolution, or was it evidence of something else?

Darwin’s Views

Darwin believed that all plants, animals and humans had evolved from previous “lower” forms of life by means of gradual changes over vast periods of time. He reasoned that everything living had originally come from a “few forms” of life or just one, adding: “From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” (Origin of Species) Today, those who accept evolution generally adhere to the same basic ideas, believing that living things were not created by God, but that they evolved.

What Darwin saw during his visit of just a few weeks on the Galápagos was an “inspiration for many of his views” on evolution, says the Encyclopædia Britannica. And what he observed was this: (1) that living things on the Galápagos were similar to those on the South American continent, and he concluded that they came from there originally, not being created on the Galápagos; and (2) that over the years, variations in those living things on the Galápagos made them somewhat different from their “cousins” on the mainland. These two basic observations, he felt, reinforced his belief that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.

Regarding the Galápagos, The World Book Encyclopedia states: “Much evidence of evolution comes from plants and animals that live on islands far from continents. The Galapagos Islands, for example, . . . have 26 kinds of land birds, all resembling species found in western South America. But 23 of these species seem to have changed since they reached the islands, for the Galapagos birds are distinct species. Comparable differences are shown by lizards and tortoises, of which there were 11 species on as many different islands. They apparently developed there because of changes that took place after their ancestors drifted from the mainland of South America.”

What He Assumed

Commenting on the similarities to mainland animals, Darwin said in Origin of Species: “The Galapagos Archipelago . . . bears the unmistakable stamp of the American continent. The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America?” (Italics ours)

Darwin assumed that a belief in creation required that totally different plants and animals be created in various places, especially on oceanic islands far removed from other land areas. For example, of St. Helena in the southern Atlantic Ocean, he said: “He who admits the doctrine of creation of each separate species, will have to admit that a sufficient number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created for oceanic islands,” having obviously come from other areas. (Italics ours)

Regarding the absence of frogs on some ocean islands, he said that the lack of them “on so many true oceanic islands cannot be accounted for by their physical conditions: indeed it seems that islands are peculiarly fitted for these animals; for frogs have been introduced into Madeira, the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied . . . But why, on the theory of creation, they should not have been created there, it would be very difficult to explain.” (Italics ours)

On the absence of many other mammals on various ocean islands, Darwin stated: “It cannot be said, on the ordinary view of creation, that there has not been time for the creation of mammals; . . . Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands? On my view this question can easily be answered; for no terrestrial mammal can be transported across a wide space of sea, but bats can fly across.” (Italics ours)

Were his assumptions correct? Must a Creator have fashioned totally different living things in different places, especially on remote islands? And were the differences Darwin observed in living things on ocean islands, compared to their mainland counterparts, so great that it could be said that new types were being evolved?

Darwin’s Finches

One type of bird, called a finch, particularly caught Darwin’s attention. In his short study on the Galápagos, it appeared to him that many different species of finches had evolved on the islands of the archipelago. The variations were mostly in the size and shape of their beaks. Darwin felt that these different beaks had evolved according to the differing conditions on the various islands. As the Encyclopædia Britannica put it: “The Darwin finches have developed a multitude of adaptive types from one common ancestor. They differ mainly in beak shape and size.”

However, naturalist guide Ronald Daeumler, who recently spent two years on the Galápagos, observed: “Frankly, I was astounded on learning that this was really Darwin’s most convincing reason to show that evolution was a possible explanation of the origin of the species. He reasoned that if the finch could, as he called it, evolve a new beak, then it was probable that it could also evolve into another animal if enough time was granted. Could this thinking really be the foundation that has caused so many millions of people to renounce the concept of an intelligent creator? Was this the strongest support that Darwin’s islands could give to evolution?

“As a guide I was really interested in being able to identify the different finches. But since they are called different species I had imagined that identification would be a very easy process. However, as I did research I came to realize that the differences between these so-called species were so small that many could be identified only by weighing or measuring different organs such as the heart or brain. As one author said: ‘It is only a very wise man or a fool who thinks he is able to identify all the finches which he sees.”’

Daeumler then observes: “But really, have the Galapagos finches made what could be called evolutionary changes, changes that in time could change them into something else? Or are these finches simply variations and adaptations that are common to all different, basic types of animals? The facts were clear to me: these finches were still finches and nothing else, and long ages of time were not making them change into something else.”

Darwin’s Tortoises

The giant tortoise of the islands is called the “galapago,” from which the islands get their name. According to Darwin, their isolation on the different islands of the Galápagos resulted in their evolving into different species.

However, the naturalist guide comments: “When I would take a group of tourists to the Darwin Station, a scientist would give them a talk about the islands. One thing they usually mentioned was how the tortoise has evolved differently on each island and had become separate species. Then, ironically, they would take the tourists to a corral where they had a number of tortoises and would explain that these had been taken from the islands as babies by people, but then years later the people who took them had returned them to the Darwin Station for protection. But the scientist explained that these animals had not been returned to their native islands because it had not been determined what species the different ones belonged to, and thus they could not determine from which islands they came.

“But if they had evolved into different species, should there not be enough differences so it should be obvious from which islands the tortoises came? It was so apparent to me that what many scientists called new species, as if some evolutionary process had occurred, were simply slight variations that all animal types are capable of producing.

“Even Craig McFarlan, director of the Darwin Station when I was there, and one of the foremost authorities on the giant tortoise, stated that there is no conclusive proof that the tortoises are even different species, but perhaps are only subspecies. Whatever classification the scientist may choose to put them in, one thing is certain: they are still tortoises and not evolving into something else!”

Basic Flaws

While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor variations meant that something was evolving.

None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.

The Bible shows that in each case animals, plants and humans reproduce “according to [their] kind.” (Gen. 1:11, 21, 24, 25) This Biblical “kind” allows for great variety within it, but cannot mix with other “kinds.” For example, there could be many varieties of tortoises and finches, these animals being created with the capacity for such variation, but they would forever remain tortoises and finches.

The Human Creation

The creation of humans and their subsequent spread over all the earth, including isolated ocean islands, is similar to what happened to other living things.

After the flood of Noah’s day, humans began to spread out over all the earth from Asia Minor. In time, some groups became more isolated than others. Over the centuries, certain variations, or characteristics, became more pronounced, so that in time Pacific Ocean islands came to be inhabited mainly by Polynesian or Melanesian varieties, whereas in Africa the black variation came to the fore, and in Asia, the yellow. But all were still of the human “kind.” They prove it by their ability to intermarry and produce offspring, whereas different “kinds” such as dogs and cats, for example, can never mate and have offspring.

Hardly any two humans look exactly alike. But would anyone say that because humans have various shapes of noses, for example, they are evolving in different directions? Neither should we conclude that evolution is taking place just because we can observe different beaks on the Galápagos finches, or variations in the tortoise.

Mr. Daeumler, the naturalist guide, concluded: “I went to the Galapagos with an open mind, to study and observe for myself, without pressure from others. I wanted to find out if this so-called ‘laboratory of evolution’ was scientific fact or myth. After two years, which included some of the most interesting and enjoyable experiences of my life, I am convinced more than ever that evolutionary explanations for the origin of the species have no scientific basis. Only a supreme intelligence could be responsible for the incredible variety of life in the Galapagos, each multiplying ‘according to its kind,’ but allowing for a great variety within each kind, adding interest and pleasure for the human family.”

There exists a law among living things that has no exception. As “Scientific American” notes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.”

[Pictures on page 17]

Creatures can have great variety within their own kind but never evolve into something else

“One Standard Lifespan”—Except for Man

“SMALL MAMMALS tick fast, burn rapidly, and live for a short time; large ones live long at a stately pace,” says Harvard professor Jay Gould. “Their lifetimes are scaled to their life’s pace, and all endure for approximately the same amount of biological time.”

Gould’s observations were based on studies of mammals ranging in size from mouse to elephant. When the heartbeat and breath rate of mammals of increasing size were charted against their body weight, it was found that both slow down at the same pace. Also, their life span was found to increase as size increased.

During their lives, all mammals, large and small, were found to breathe about 200 million times, and their hearts beat about 800 million times. According to the article “One Standard Lifespan” in Britain’s “New Scientist” magazine, this means that, “measured by the [pace] of their own hearts or the rhythm of their own breathing, all mammals live about the same [biological] time.”

To illustrate: Shrews are among the smallest of mammals, yet their rate of living is among the fastest. Jittering about, they consume about three times their body weight of food daily. And their average life span is only about one year. On the other hand, hefty elephants plod along slowly, but can live as long as 60 to 80 years.

But what about humans? “Homo sapiens emerges as a very peculiar animal,” answers the “New Scientist” report. “We live about three times as long as mammals of our body size should.” In other words, we do not fit in with this nicely worked-out pattern.

What accounts for this difference? Interestingly, the Bible record shows that our first human parents, but not the animals, had before them the prospect of unending life. They were told that death would be their lot only if they disobeyed the law of God, their Creator. (Gen. 2:9, 15-17) Though biologists may reason that man’s life span is long in relation to his size, it is greatly reduced from what it could have been. Yet the Bible holds forth to humans the prospect of extended life expectancy once again, saying: “Like the days of a tree will the days of my people be.”—Isa. 65:22.

Why Are They Leaving the Church of Sweden?

BY “AWAKE!” CORRESPONDENT IN SWEDEN

THE Church of Sweden Is Going Downhill, More Are Resigning, Fewer Get Baptized.” “Serious Crisis Threatening the Church.” “There is great anxiety within the Church for the future.” “The Church has lost its grip on the Swedish people.”

Headlines and statements like these abound in the Swedish press. They testify to the fact that the official Church of Sweden is experiencing what many within the Church consider to be the worst crisis ever. One of the priests expressed his evaluation of the condition by writing in a daily: “The situation is for the present extremely dark within the Church of Sweden. Actually there is reason to believe that we within the Church have reached the bottom.”

What has happened to this Church, which historically has had a strong position in Sweden? In 1593 it was officially declared Evangelical-Lutheran as to its confession. In 1686 it was tied to the State, thus becoming the State Church of Sweden. This meant that practically all Swedes by birth would become members of the Church.

In the beginning, this membership was permanent. It was impossible for anyone to resign. According to an ecclesiastical law of 1686, all kinds of dissociation or apostasy were declared forbidden and were punished with the loss of right of inheritance and with expatriation. Not until January 1, 1952, was it possible to resign from the Church, after a new law of religious liberty was instituted.

Jehovah’s Witnesses the First to Resign

During the first years thereafter, few people used their right to resign. The Swedes in general just did not care. One exception was Jehovah’s Witnesses. They resigned almost immediately. The Witnesses declared that they wanted to show that they belong to one international Christian brotherhood, a church that is free from the influence of any political state or government and solely governed by God through his Son, Jesus Christ. So far, more than 17,000 of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Sweden have resigned from the Church.

What is now worrying the authorities of the Church of Sweden is that so many others have resigned during the last 10 years. About 110,000 have handed in resignations to their local priests. Moreover, a recent poll shows that 10 percent of the members of the Church are planning to resign. That would mean another 800,000.

The Female Priest Issue

A study by the Swedish Institute for Sociology of Religion reveals that the foremost reason why people are resigning is that they have lost their faith and interest in the Church. In many cases this is due to the bitter strife that is raging within the Church concerning the issue of female priests.

In 1958 the Swedish Parliament decided to let women become ordained. Of a total of about 2,900 priests serving in the Church of Sweden, now about 330 are women. This has caused a storm of reactions among both priests and laymen. The majority, about 58 percent, of the priests are in favor of female priests, mostly for the sake of equality of the sexes. But a phalanx of about 42 percent of the bishops and priests are resisting the idea, some very vigorously, pointing to the words of the apostle Paul at First Corinthians 14:34: “Let the women keep silent in the congregation.”

The weekly magazine Vecko-Journalen of March 20, 1978, reports: “The question of female priests has become a malignant ulcer in the Church.” And in an interview in the same magazine the archbishop, Olof Sundby, said in connection with resignation of membership because of the issue of female priests: “It is not so much a question of different opinions about the issue as it is our way of handling the opposition, often characterized by the lack of love and tolerance.”

The daily Smålandsposten of January 27, 1979, said: “May the strife in our church end before all respect for the church and our priests is gone and our sanctuaries are emptied of the most important thing: the people.”

But the strife keeps raging and the “sanctuaries” are being emptied of the people. A recent study reveals that only 1.98 percent of the Swedish population attend church, and in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, the corresponding figure is .78—less than one percent! One of the superintendents of the Church, a priest, recently suggested to Church authorities that half of the churches in Sweden be closed to relieve at least 1,000 priests and church musicians of their duty to prepare and hold services. The labor saving would be used to “help the church and the society out of their critical development.”—Svenska Dagbladet, November 20, 1980.

Deviation from the Bible

There is another reason for the increasing resignations. According to the Institute for Sociology of Religion, many feel that the priests deviate from the Bible in many of their views and dealings. For instance, pointing to such Bible verses as Romans 1:26, 27 and First Corinthians 6:9, 10, many find it repugnant that an increasing number of priests accept and even give their blessing to homosexuality. Others find it indecent that priests, in their efforts to get people to attend church, have opened up their sanctuaries for worldly politicians, singers, musicians and other entertainers, even letting them take over the service. Recently, Church members all over the country were shocked when the a pastor primarius in Stockholm invited a number of astrologers and fortune-tellers to present their ideas and to cast visitors’ horoscopes in the Cathedral of Stockholm (Storkyrkan).

Church members also turn against the lenient view spreading among the priests concerning sexual morality. A recently retired bishop of Stockholm openly recommended that young people in his church live together freely, declaring himself ready to perform their marriage as soon as they have made up their minds.

The sympathy of many priests as to free abortions, which now have reached the level of one abortion for every three childbirths in Sweden, has also frightened members away from the Church.

In the daily Norra Skåne of October 22, 1980, an assistant vicar summarizes his view of the situation as to ‘worldliness’ in the Church in this way: “Nowadays, almost everything is permitted within our Church. Those who intend to become priests may deny most of the Bible and still become ordained. Sermons may deal with just anything except the pure and clear Word of God without intervention from anybody. The clerical vow to preach the Word according to the Scriptures and the creed of the Church seems to be an empty vow without any importance and commitment.”

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, June 8, 1981