by slimboyfat 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
We are moving beyond that to a more pragmatic engagement with our world that asks, not, how is the world really, in itself, but rather how can we construct the world in the best way to fit our objectives.
Yes I agree but that is totally different to looking for a belief system that promotes a way of life and world view that's satisfying even if untrue, as you stated in your OP. You have lost your way here from your topic subject.
The real question here is why you are yet again asking about the shape of the planet on a thread that has got nothing to do with it.
The practical point I am making here is that there are better ways to judge a religion than if it's "true". This is a helpful pragmatic approach, but it is anathema to JWs just as it is to militant atheists, as they are two sides of the same coin. For them they would pursue the idea of "truth" even if it led them over a cliff. They are welcome if they wish, but it's not the point here.
If you keep insisting some linguistic statements are closer to reality than others, maybe you can also tell me which Beethoven Symphony is closer to North Berwick, or which Kingdom Song best fits the river Tay.
You have lost your way here from your topic subject - Xant
Perhaps not. Disciples of Derrida will never affirm that anything is objectively wrong. So as far as SBF is concerned there are no facts, no objective truths of any kind. He is only interested in making an aesthetic judgement on whether or not the Watchtower's narrative is useful.
Of course "pomos" make a thousand decisions everyday based on facts about objective reality. It is basically mental masturbation.
maybe you can also tell me which Beethoven Symphony is closer to North Berwick, or which Kingdom Song best fits the river Tay - SBF
Thank you for proving my point.
Football's on now.
Yes I agree but that is totally different to looking for a belief system that promotes a way of life and world view that's satisfying even if untrue, as you stated I your OP.
I can absolutely see how what I wrote can be read in that way. I could be taken to be saying "even if what JWs teach is true it's not worth doing", or "even if what other religions teach is not true they may be worth joining anyway". But that is not what I am saying, and the difference is important. What I am saying is that the very concept of truth is problematic and needs to be gotten rid of in the conversation.
Imagine people intend to burn a woman to determine if she is a witch. I say to those people "don't do that, it's no way to treat someone, and besides it's no way to find out if she is a witch either". Early modern witch burners may be liable to misunderstand that objection as an admission that there is such a thing as a witch. They think I am just objecting to the method of discovery, rather than the concept, and the comment "no way to treat someone" they brush aside as irrelevant to determining the truth.
It's the same here. My main objection about evaluating religions on the basis of "truth" is that it is as flawed as evaluating a woman by burning her to see whether she is a witch. It's not just the methodology that is flawed, it is the whole idea. On top of that, the most important thing in the situation is how you treat the person/the practical results of pursuing a belief system. Concentration on concepts of witches and truth just badly misses the point!
Yes when I was a JW I thought if the big A and the paradise is a reality then forbidding Xmas, our children having birthdays, worldly friends and blood transfusions makes sense, the end justifies the means. It did matter to me if it was correct however because if it's all nonsense then it means letting kids be screwed up by being isolated from normality at best and at worst dying from lack of medical treatment.
Now I tend to take the view that denying kids normal human friendship and fun is as you put it 'no way to treat someone'. If there is a God why would he do that? So in that sense I agree that often the best way to find out if a religion is 'right' and 'true' is if it works for human beings. No loving God would want us to spend a lifetime being miserable now for a beautiful future. This is a dark and medieval way of seeing the world. An omniscient being would not treat humans like this, he would know it wasn't necessary.
On top of that, the most important thing in the situation is how you treat the person/the practical results of pursuing a belief system.
Yes but in practical terms a belief system, a religion, entails people making rules that impact on your life. Don't have an abortion, a divorce, a blood transfusion, sex before marriage, a same-sex partner, a vote, an education etc. Beliefs impact on reality, whether they are true or not.
If I was starting from scratch, I think the better question would be, "Why do I need to attach myself to a religion to have a satisfying life?"
Of course, in line with Xanthippe, religions generally do mean agreeing to accept a set of belief and rules. So if you are going to join one, and if you are up to speed with the fact that in most cases this is what a religion entails, it does seem ridiculous to attach oneself with harsh demands as we did when becoming JWs.
Some of this was hidden from us who were not born in, like myself. They are not as forthcoming as they should have been now that I look back. And other times they were acting on the ignorance that came from them being cut off from education and proper analytical thinking. I can't say I know what it is for someone who is born in. In such a case you might not know where the "lies we don't tell others" begin and "the way we explain it to outsiders" gets officially marked off.
And, while I've heard that saying this causes brain freeze to JWs and even some exJWs, I belong to a religious tradition that believes that beliefs are insufficient and irrelevant.
This does not mean that we don't have convictions, beliefs, faith, etc. All people have convictions, even faith in their stand that all religion is malarkey. But believing something or not believing is mainly something you do with the mind. Those higher concepts of doctrinal catechesis and arguments why such beliefs cannot be real or reasonable are mostly only things you can argue about. Most of can't really prove what we believe or don't believe. We think we can, and whether religious or non-religious we can spend a lot of time--wasting a lot of time--arguing that what we think, the intangible convictions of our mind whether religious or against relgion, have some sort of power, value, and means to make us more than what we really are...perhaps even elevate us above those who don't subscribe to our convictions.
And yet most of us, especially when put to the test or when things get rough, will excuse ourselves of having to follow what we believe. There may be no atheists in fox holes, but the guy next to him praying his rosary has got a gun and will use it despite what the Ten Commandments say.
The problem with Jehovah's Witnesses is that they teach us that what concepts we adhere to, most of them intangible, are important. We came to believe that a small amount of doubt can ruin these beliefs. If there is a God, how is your mere mental acknowledgment of God's existence relevant? If an atheist acts with more love and fights more injustice than you the believer, didn't the atheist do a better job of bringing God into the world? But for his disbelief the atheist gets destroyed or goes to hell? Nonsense.
Beliefs are a starting point, but they are irrelevant to actions. What you do, how you act, defines what you really are, what you really believe. Fighting amongst ourselves that we are somehow more enlightened due to what we believe or don't doesn't amount to much.
You can argue that if there was a God there wouldn't be suffering in the world, but then you prove that you choose to waste your time blaming an intangible belief and arguing against it instead of using your own power and ability to bring relief from that suffering. Says a lot about us in comparison to a God that supposedly doesn't exist when we do that. Our actions are what really matter.
Then again, so does the appearance of a Kingdom Hall. If this is Jehovah's one true religion, why Kingdom Halls? They always gave me the creeps and I had to constantly be compartmentalizing my mind screaming at me that "this is the type of building a cult would meet in."
Beliefs are a starting point, but they are irrelevant to actions. - DJ
The parent who watches a child die rather than permit a life-saving blood transfusion does so entirely because of holding false beliefs about reality.
The Muslim who blows himself up shouting Allah Akbar is acting on false beliefs.
Beliefs are emphatically not irrelevant to actions.
You can argue that if there was a God there wouldn't be suffering in the world, but then you prove that you choose to waste your time blaming an intangible belief and arguing against it instead of using your own power and ability to bring relief from that suffering.
As an anti-theist I have would never make such a facile argument. This is a straw man. Presenting the evidence against religious superstition is not a waste of time and does not prevent me from also doing good to others. This is a false dichotomy.
Beliefs are a starting point, but they are irrelevant to actions. What you do, how you act, defines what you really are, what you really believe. Fighting amongst ourselves that we are somehow more enlightened due to what we believe or don't doesn't amount to much.When I studied history my tutors emphasised that beliefs, whether religious or political inform all the actions in history. Beliefs are what make us do what we do, they are far from irrelevant.
My current favorite argument is simple numbers.
We start with a basic premise:
IF Christianity contains the only true religion
There are 40 thousand instances to choose from (denominations).
The odds of finding the 1 true instance is 1 in 40 thousand.
So, you have to ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do ya, punk?
