by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible
LOL @ EW
IMHO a close and critical study of the Bible may shed a completely different light on it, but doesn't make it any less magnificent, for all that.
I continue to be astounded at the number of people who completely discredit it, when they have never read it completely. How they expect to be taken seriously, I have no idea!
AlanF
Just a point:
An interesting point. In my experience (I'll keep this oriented toward ex-JWs) thoughtful ex-JWs usually go through a period of intense questioning after they leave the JW cult. Then they either become agnostic/atheist, or some kind of other Christian. A very small number join non-Christian religions. I don't consider the ex-JWs who go off and get involved in really stupid behaviors like doing drugs and so forth to be thoughtful.
That is not a very scientific statement. Did you research that yourself? Do you have statistics to back up that assertion?
There are a fair few on this board who hold non-christian religious beliefs, so perhaps you'd be surprised.
Beliefs are very personal. I would condemn a religion (group) which was destructive to the person in any way, but I won't condemn personal beliefs. They are valid to the individual and as you know, not everything can be scientifically tested.
Sirona
but perhaps we are just wired up completely differently - which may be something to think about when considering why people come to the conclusions they do!
Perhaps you have explained WHY people believe and behave as they do. Many times we wonder WHY people do not see things in the same light as we or others and we feel they are being stubborn, or selfish, or are too weak emotionally to change their thinking, yet, could it be these ones are actually seeing it the way they truely see it and understand it?
Perhaps for some, their reasoning ability shuts down because emotional barriers prevent logical thinking, and keeps them safe at least in their own mind.
As for exposing the dubs vs. christians......I understand your point LT. I agree that the WTBTS are a danger to the lives of people in comparison to much of christianity, though not ALL of christianity as you are aware of.
Whether or not it is proper to aid one in "losing their religion" is still an enigma to me. Should a person ALWAYS see both sides of the coin? I've seen ones turn from christianity only to ruin their lives once they did. These ones would have been better off staying where they were when you compare the lifestyle each road took them on, but,...... you cannot apply this same rule to everyone that leaves their religion. Some people simply turn into weirdo geeks like Alan F and Onacruse......( just kiddin)
Gumby
Regarding Science as a Religion, I suspect that for some it is. As for the harm it's caused, the usual excuse of "well we designed the bomb, but never thought that in a million years someone would drop it" is likely an outright lie or at best stupid naivity. There are times when the ethics of a line of work are trampled upon the altar of "progressing understanding".
Good point. Science in and of itself isn't to blame for it's misuse, the blame lies with greedy unscrupulous people. Just as religion can't be blamed for how some people twist and misuse it's message.
Not all religion is bad and not all religious people are bad. Not all beliefs are dangerous or bad either. My niece believes that she will see my dead parents again in a new world. I have no problem with her believing that as it hurts no one and makes her feel better. Heck for all I know she might ultimately be right, I mean who really does know what happens when we die or what the far reaching future holds? So who am I to try and shoot her belief down just because it doesn't happen to jive with what I believe now? On the other hand if she chose not to give her daughter blood I would to try and shoot that belief down because it DOES hurt someone.
See the difference?
Gumby:
Shock, horror - I agree with all of your post (probably because you're being so agreeable with me ). Besides, we're just weirdo geeks of a different brand
What makes one person a scientist and another an artist, one a lateral thinker and one a serial thinker, etc., etc., etc.
IMHO a lack of understanding about other groups causes a lot of miscommunications.
Maybe the psychologists understand the nuances, but they're all insane, and they aren't telling!!!
The way we look at the world shapes the world we actually see (which IMHO is the crux of many of the exchanges JamesThomas, MarkFromCali, and I have).
Now, can we apply that to how "God" may think (temporarily taking the position that He exists)?
:On the other hand if she chose not to give her daughter blood I would to try and shoot that belief down because it DOES hurt someone.
Just a side note to this discussion; the danger in that is that when blood is needed, it is usually an emergency. If someones "belief programming" does it's job, even the danger of losing their child will not overcome that programing. I see dead babies.
Six:You make a valid point.
A little over a week ago I had breakfast with a few friends, and the plate was filled with all sorts of food, including black pudding (blood sausage). As I worked my way round the bacon and eggs I pondered back and forth whether or not to eat it.
In the end I decided not to, and without fuss just left it to the side of my plate, based on some potentially silly reasons (one being that I could still deny eating it to my parents, and thus retain the position that I'd take a transfusion in a medical emergancy, because life is involved). If I eat it, I'd also rather "try" it in the privacy of my own home, without onlookers, as I'm almost certain that some of my friends must have wondered how I would deal with it (or am I just being paranoid - maybe they were thinking "I hope that b*stard will offer it me, if he's not going to eat it").
I found the funniest thing, in all of this, to be the internal debate I had on the whole ludicrous subject...
Six,
You are assuming I haven't already begun discussing blood with her, I suppose a valid assumption as I was not clearer. She has already indicated she would give her daughter blood regardless of what the dubs teach. Believe it or not you can shoot down one aspect of a belief system and still leave the rest of it intact...this of course depends on the individuals involved...it also takes time and tact.....not just stomping in and running people down. What a concept.
edited to add that the basic point I wanted to make is that most faiths don't have harmful doctrine that need to be rooted out. I used the blood example to show the difference between harmful doctrine vs ones that harm no one.
Hi LittleToe,
: You categorise elements of my reply as being "in sweeping and almost meaningless generalities",
Of course, because as I pointed out, you haven't been specific very much. People give you specifics; you reply in generalities. Generalities sometimes answer specifics, but not in this case. Why are you so hesitant to deal with specifics? I've asked you a number of specific questions, which you've ignored.
: being "way too touchy-feely" for your taste,
That's obviously my subjective judgment.
: "apples and oranges",
That's objectively provable.
: and admit you miss the point of some of my analogies.
So far as I can see, I didn't understand only one of your so-called analogies, because it was extremely unclear and ambiguous. Rather than ask for an explanation, I simply replied with something rather noncommital. But since you raise the point, I'll deal with that specifically. You said:
If you'll permit, I'll take an analogy of Martial Arts (my current favourite).
Therein motion follows intent, leading to achievement. The same is to be found in all manner of "belief", IMHO.
Just what does it mean to "take an analogy of Martial Arts"? Is "Martial Arts" the name of a book? Or are you capitalizing the generic term "martial arts" for some reason? Since you italicized "my current favorite" and didn't italicize "Martial Arts" (careful writers italicize book titles, in case you didn't know), how is a reader supposed to resolve the ambiguity? What does it mean to "take an analogy" of a book? What does it mean to "take an analogy" of a category of sports? Did you really mean, "I'll make an analogy with a theme from the martial arts"? Or perhaps, "I'll make an analogy using a statement from the book Martial Arts"? How about the statement, "Therein motion follows intent, leading to achievement"? Was that a quotation from a book called Martial Arts? It sounds like it could be, but it could also be your summary of a particular philosophical perspective within the various disciplines of the martial arts. If it was a quotation, then why did you leave off the quotation marks that would help resolve the previous ambiguities? Again, how is a reader supposed to resolve the ambiguities? How about the next phrase, "The same is to be found in all manner of "belief", IMHO"? Is it part of a quotation, or is it your own idea, or have you mixed a quotation and your own idea? How is a reader supposed to tell?
My point here is that if you want people to understand your writing, you have to write clearly and remove as much ambiguity as you can. That's why I said that some of your comments are way too touchy-feely for my taste.
: Might it actually be that you've missed the connection?
Not after you explained things more clearly.
: I'm happy to take my share of the blame for perhaps not communicating effectively, but given that there is a connection, perhaps you are too easily dismissive of my points.
I'm not dismissing some of your points because I don't understand them, but because I do. Furthermore, you're not even answering some of my comments that could help clear up possible misunderstanding. For example, in a post above you said, "you might examine some of your own preconceptions and assumptions." I said, "And what do you think they might be?" Why did you not answer?
: An example of this was my comments about being "nice Christian/Scientist". I find it hard to believe that you don't make the connection to our respective fields,
But I did make the connection. I said, "I understand that, and my point was to irritate you a bit."
: but perhaps we are just wired up completely differently - which may be something to think about when considering why people come to the conclusions they do!
I completely understand such different wiring. But if you're discussing a specific subject for which clear conclusions can be drawn, then at most one set of conclusions can be correct. Therefore different mental wiring is irrelevant. An artist or an engineer must draw the conclusion that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way round; any other conclusion is invalid.
: I do understand your desire to get people to think outside of the box, though, as I'm driven by the same motive.
Good deal!
: Your work was already done for you, before you attempted that with me, however.
Well, you haven't been too clear on that so far.
: Most folks already believe that I'm "out of my box"!!! LOL
I've often been told the same.
: I take on board your point about you not being entirely happy with the Big Bang theory, as currently proposed. My main point was really to highlight that Scientific tradition can be as monolithic as Religious tradition.
You're preaching to the choir.
: Given that you don't hold that theory as highly as I (admittedly) assumed, but that I also don't hold the Bible as highly as you (perhaps) assumed,
That is apparently the case. What, then, is your view of the Bible? Is it the Word of God as Christians traditionally have claimed? Or just the writings of humans?
: we're both (perhaps) making asumptions which cause some of our arguments to be meaningless (though hopefully they may spark some thought in anyone else reading, so I don't see it as totally without purpose).
I'd like to think this is so.
EW wrote: You make interesting statements. Im curious what is mankinds purpose?
AF wrote: I have no clue. Probably none.
: Another assumption?
Note the word "probably". It expands on the sentence "I have no clue" by implying that I have a leaning, but am not dogmatic about it; therefore I've not made any assumptions. An assumption would be made in a reply consisting only of "None."
: As for the "God of the gaps", I think that works pretty well, personally.
But my entire point was that this works only in the short run and only as a stopgap, and only as a means to quit thinking about hard questions. That may be fine for some people, but recognizing and dealing with "gaps" on a rational rather than myth-based basis is almost always better. It's certainly more useful.
: I have my doubts as to whether or not He'll be reduced to zero, but if He is then my opinion is that He deserves to be.
I agree with the latter.
: Your example of the discovery of Uranus is completely valid, but please don't miss the fact that the Religious world has accepted this as fact, too.
Yes, after a good deal of kicking and screaming. And of course, the religious world has a long way to go in other areas.
: In connection with the whole theistic outlook of exJW's, I have to concur that the majority appear to me to become agnostic, too.
I didn't say that. I said, with respect to people leaving the JW cult, that after leaving "they either become agnostic/atheist, or some kind of other Christian. A very small number join non-Christian religions."
: That's not statistically disproportionate with the rest of the never-been-a-JW Western world, though.
I think that depends on what country you're talking about. The majority of people in the U.S. believe in some kind of God and don't class themselves as agnostic. My impression is that even in the relatively irreligious European sphere, a very large fraction of people wouldn't class themselves as agnostic. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
: Regarding Science as a Religion, I suspect that for some it is.
Of course it is -- for some. But in my experience, good scientists and other technically oriented people don't view science in any way as a religion, but as I've already explained -- an ongoing and evolving process that is very much a human endeavor.
: As for the harm it's caused, the usual excuse of "well we designed the bomb, but never thought that in a million years someone would drop it" is likely an outright lie or at best stupid naivity.
It's comments like this that indicate to me you don't have a good understanding of science as a whole or scientists as individuals. Science is not a monolithic enterprise any more than art is, so putting words in the mouths of scientists like "we designed the bomb...", as if the entire world of scientists participated, is as completely off base as an artist saying, "we painted the Mona Lisa". Furthermore, "the bomb" was a wartime enterprise done by people intent on winning a war at all costs and who were specifically recruited for the purpose -- a purpose that must have required certain a priori political views. So, while I agree that the participating scientists must have known in their bones that their creation would be used, I don't agree that this has any connection with our dicussion.
: There are times when the ethics of a line of work are trampled upon the altar of "progressing understanding".
Again I think you don't understand science. Science, in and of itself, has no ethics, any more than art does. Scientists and artists certainly have ethics, though. And, while they can collectively agree upon a certain set of ethics, I don't know of any such set for either the worldwide community of scientists or of artists. So when any trampling of ethics is claimed to have been done, it's been done by individuals, and a lot of people might not agree that any trampling has occurred at all.
: I do think you are being a little disingenuous when you in one breath claim that you don't have much invested in any kind of belief, but in the next breath confess that you knew that everyone has their beliefs about how the world is.
I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth. Perhaps reading into my writing what I have not said is a source of mistunderstanding. The only thing I said about investment was part of this exchange:
LittleToe: (depending on how much you'd invested in your beliefs regarding the Big Bang), else maybe you'd not bother.
AlanF: I have no particular investment in any scientific theories at all. I'm interested in the facts, and in the best interpretation of those facts. If someone comes up with better interpretations than are now current, then fine.
So you've apparently interpreted my statement about being interested in facts and their interpretation as having some sort of mere belief in science. But that's misconstruing my meaning.
As for confessing that I "knew that everyone has their beliefs about how the world is", here is what we said:
LittleToe: My point being? Simply this (and I apologise for my verbosity); that each and every one of us has our beliefs about how the world is.
AlanF: I knew that!
My reply was again noncommittal, for the reason that your statement that everyone has beliefs about the world is so trivially true as to be a complete non sequitur. I didn't want to point that out; hence my answer.
In any case, your logic is flawed. One can fail to "have much invested in any kind of belief" and yet still acknowledge the trival fact that "everyone has their beliefs about how the world is."
: And as for finding people who are "who are ridiculously self-righteous and judgmental and arrogant", I have to confess that my own experience has been that it's a very human foible, and not at all restricted to the Religious...
True.
: Good catch on the Marital Arts, btw Gotta love those typos, huh?
They often add to the overall humor of discussions such as this.
: You state that "no amount of belief is going to let me flap my arms and fly to Glasgow", but I disagree. That may be the case in a physical sense, and the whole arm flapping bit maybe an unnecessary tool, but I assure you it can be done, a la OBE's
I hope you're not being serious. I often have nice dreams where I do flap my arms and fly about, but I never confuse them with reality.
: Btw, well done on killing Bloody-Bible-god. I did that, too. But supposing, just supposing, he was a strawman...
You'll have to give me some clues about what you're talking about.
: Regarding UnDis's original post, I should point out to you that the reason this thread has gone on for 15 pages is because most everyone who has replied disagrees with his initial assertion - LOL.
Good deal!
: I'll take your challenge, though:
: The Adam and Eve story may well be man's attempt to describe what he saw as his "disconnection from the Divine". The "reconnection" of which has obsessed millions of people throughout history (and potentially pre-history, given the likely writing date of these documents, and the similar themes seen in ancient cultures).
: To take this into the realms of theology, you'll see that this is exactly what has been argued for pages now, with UnDis in the Arminian camp, EW in the Calvinist camp, DDog on the Hyper-Calvinist camp, and LT as the happy-go-lucky Christian Mystic (with Calvinist leanings where touching biblical theology).
: I honestly can't recommend you read all 15 pages,
I'd as soon read the latest Watchtower.
: but the argument (from a strictly biblical standpoint) appears to be coming down on the side of Calvinism:
God predestined some to be elected to glory, which is His sovereign right, but every one else is condemned due to their own responsibility (especially Adam).
Quite a dichotomy, huh?
I suppose so, but you didn't address my point in any way. With respect to Undisfellowshipped's argument I said:
What Christians who argue in this way are forgetting (this includes JWs and most other Christians I've discussed this with) is that the Bible doctrine requires that God created all of Adam and Eve's offspring "in such a way that they MUST SIN." So Undisfellowshipped's argument is a sidestep and fails to address the real issue (if you want to read a very long treatise that I wrote on this topic in 1991, and sent to the Watchtower Society, check here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ransom.htm ). If you can substantively and specifically address this problem, then you'll have done something no Christian I've ever dealt with has.
My point was that, irrespective of the Arminian camp, the Calvinist camp, the Hyper-Calvinist camp, or any other camp, THE BIBLE along with elementary genetics clearly implies that God made all humans after Adam and Eve such that they MUST SIN. I thought it went without saying that this is grossly unjust, and conflicts with the claim of all Christians that their God is the epitome of justice, because the entire notion of redemption is based on the concept of God's being required by his superior justice to "balance the scales of justice". But if God created the imbalance in the first place, then it's a meaningless exercise to demand a redemption price. There are other implications as well, but I won't bother to say anything more unless you're willing to get down to the nitty gritty details and argue why God is just, or alternatively, admit that he isn't, or that, as I've concluded, there is no such being.
: Gotta love that bible stuff!!!
: Would you like some whipped cream and sprinkles, with yours?
I'll pass, thank you.
AlanF
ellderwho said:
: So your mind is derived from "natural" laws?
Right.
: And the end result is your mind/brain has risen above these natural laws to give you a pupose of survival?
Not at all. The notion that survival is a purpose in evolution is flat-out wrong, according to evolutionary biologists. It's a statistical thing. Suppose you pour a cup of sand into an hourglass. There's going to be a last grain of sand that falls through the hole, even though no one can predict which grain it's going to be. That grain might be said to have survived the longest. All of the grains obey certain statistical physical laws in falling through the hole, but it can hardly be argued that physical law was designed to enable a sand grain to survive. It simply turns out that way, without necessarily anyone designing a purpose into the sand or the hourglass or matter itself.
: If so, how does your brain evolve to elavate itself above its natural origins? ie. chemical reactions in your brain.
Apply my above comments and you'll have your answer.
AlanF
