by AMNESIAN 35 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Usage of hebrew idomatic style (O that thou wouldst be like this valley)
Interesting. This is Olde English, not Hebrew. I can't think for the life of me why a 19th century "prophet" would want to translate genuine Hebrew into that form of the English language, unless he wanted it to sound like the KJV of the Bible, from which so much of the BOM was lifted.
Interesting. This is Olde English, not Hebrew. I can't think for the life of me why a 19th century "prophet" would want to translate genuine Hebrew into that form of the English language, unless he wanted it to sound like the KJV of the Bible, from which so much of the BOM was lifted.
I think it is much easier to see the lunacy in the thinking of another religion than to see it in one's own.
When I describe to people (in conversation) what I use to believe (in Witness doctrine) they look at me like I must have been brain-dammaged.
Well--yes!
Faith detaches your rational mind from fact and context and makes ANYTHING possible to swallow whole!
I'm deeply ashamed I allowed that to happen.
Why do you think I'm such a jerk about faith now?
T.
Qcmbr
just as the city of Jerusalem existing doesn't prove Jesus existed
I understand. The existence of the city of Jerusalem does nothing to prove that the events the Bible alleges to have occured there were real.
However if Jerusalem did not exist, there is absolutely no possiblity that the events the Bible alleges to have occured there were real. Any doubt that Jerusalem existed would, of necessity transfer commensurately to events alleged to have occured there. --The greater the doubt that Jerusalem existed, the greater the doubt that any events alleged to have occured there were real.
At the end of the day I guess our already decided upon worldview will inform what evidence we accept or reject and what particular spin we put on it.
Just for the record - from someone who is genuinely researching his spiritual roots and trying his best to be objective it actually makes it very difficult to stay objective when being attacked rather than reasoned with over an issue since I'm in a position of defense which automatically reinforces kinship with what is being attacked. I think Moshe provided a very useful piece of evidence (lack of coinage) which I can go away and study. I'm only saying this since many here have a sincere and heartfelt desire to help people leave cults but you have to do it by building on common beliefs rather than with a sledgehammer, delicate surgery removes cancers not chainsaw massacres.
As a slight update I've read the links and extra info provided by Terry RE the Martin Hoffman fraud and done some other background reading and this is my reaction:
1/ As per an earlier post I mentioned I'd want to know the intention of someone before I fully accepted their viewpoint and the Tanners are avowed anti-LDS. That said they seemed fair on this site with one notable disapointment for me - everything was for sale. When money motivates truth becomes less the driving cause (see David Ickes site for what I mean).
2/I noted several times how they pointed out their own intelligence at spotting the fraud - I'm not fond of self publicity - but critically the core of their argument was that LDS leadership clearly were not being 'inspired' in this situation but they (as Christians) similarly pointed out that their doubts regarding this was also not inspired(i.e. they also were using logic, common sense, deduction etc.. ) and so the very thing they criticised regarding LDS leadership they themselves did - used their own wisdom rather than received any form of inspiration.
3/ Very valid point regarding LDS 'inspiration' - they were well and truly conned. The ONLY point that I thought good enough to justify the site.
4/ Point regarding the lack of using any seerstones and the use of a magnifying glass by the then prophet. Well, heck like they would show the Urim and Thummin in public if they had it (would be claimed immediately by the state and confiscated from LDS) but far more likely they don't have it - its 'wherever' the plates are? So an OK point but not a ball buster.
LDS church - Poor result. 1 - 0 to the LDS are wrong camp.
Christianity - Poor result(from Tanners). 1 - 0 to the christian religion is wrong camp.
Qcmbr - still LDS but crisis 'slightly' deeper though still not near fatal:)
I'm currently reading up on genetics before I re-embark on evolution/ID/creation.
Ocmbr
I give you the straight dope and don't treat you like a simpleton or a child. You might prefer molley-coddling but I see no good in it. If I 'tweak you nose' through caustic humour, realise I'd do this to your face, and I often do it to try and get you to stop using the thought stopping techniques you unconciously resort to when your beliefs are challenged. I'm also not going to lie about what I think about some beliefs; I did enough of that as a Dubbie.
I've made it clear I don't think that this is about brains, indeed tried to make it clear belief is largely about HOW you have been trained to think - or trained NOT to think. At the end of the day if I didn't care I wouldn't do it. It's not about what I get out of this, it's about what I hope you might get out of changing the way you analyse facts, as currently your programming only allows you to come up with the answers you're 'meant to', rather than a genuine examination of the availabe facts.
At the end of the day I guess our already decided upon worldview will inform what evidence we accept or reject and what particular spin we put on it.
True.
But if your worldview stems from reliable rules about what is a fact, what is falacious, what is reliable evidence, what is a decent method of scientific enquiry ... if ones worldview is based on things like that, then there is an immediate link between fact and worldview. It is a worldview based on external evidences which in turn provide more detail for the worldview.
A worldview of 'if BOM says x and science says y I will believe x, or try to attack y without using the same criteria to attack x' is a self-supporting world view based on INTERNAL factors. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong in the real world.
Ask yourself, if BOM was being tried in a court of law, would it be found true, untrue or (to give the option available in Scots law) unproven?
I'm in a position of defense which automatically reinforces kinship with what is being attacked.
If you're aware of this, fight it. This is why I am so direct - I can see you are increasingly aware of HOW and WHY you react. Being aware of WHY you do things is very important as it means one has to be more honest with ourselves. Realising we are being asked to think in ways that can lead to intellectual dishonesty is an important part of disengagement from a high control group.
Having your viewpoint attacked doesn't mean you are right, yet you admit yourself being put on the defensive reinforces your beliefs! If you're smart enough to figure that out, you're nearing an important step.
Terry:
I think it is much easier to see the lunacy in the thinking of another religion than to see it in one's own.
So true. We've been there and done that. Why do you think that I emphasise spirituality over religion, so often?
Why do you think I'm such a jerk about faith now?
Because you never got in touch with your inner child?
