slimboyfat

Joined

• started 539 topics
• posted 17,647 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  55

  "Independent" Scotland joke!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.

  " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.

  try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I understand your reasons for not supporting Scottish independence, but do you respect the right of Scotland to make that choice if they wish?

  I have supported independence since 2003 and the illegal invasion of Iraq. I see Scottish independence as the only way to extricate ourselves from US/UK wars of aggression round the world and to remove nuclear weapons from the country. A smaller UK might help the rest of the UK reevaluate its own position on those issues as well.

  Scotland should also be able to pursue membership of the EU, nationalise key services such as energy and transport, preserve the health service, and much more that Westminster curtails and blocks. Scotland frequently gets outvoted and endures policies against our inclination, as with Thatcherism in the 80s, Cameron/Osborne’s austerity, and the current destruction of public services. It’s a bit much to be lectured on the need for Scots to endure all this needlessly in the name of solidarity, and wrongheaded because a smaller UK state may be the thing to help the rest of the UK reorient toward social democracy too. In the meantime why should we be tethered to a political programme we don’t endorse? Scotland should decide its own future and direction as any other normal nation state in the world, no less and no more, just seeking to be a normal country that takes its own decisions and responsibility for those decisions good or bad.
• 
  36

  My defense speech before the judicial committee

  by Disfellowshipped-Brother in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  dear brothers!.

  we have gathered here because, according to your claims, i have apostatized, and as elders, it is your duty to maintain the purity of the flock.

  it seems now that someone has contaminated it, apparently.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I didn’t think they allowed speeches.

  “What do you think this is, some kind of respectful exchange?”
  
• 
  42

  How do you feel about Brexit?

  by SydBarrett in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the "independent scotland" thread got me thinking on this.

  there are a lot of brits on this board.

  what are your thoughts on brexit?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  It’s a complete disaster as fas as I’m concerned. We don’t have freedom of movement any more. Even simple things like sending parcels to Europe has become needlessly complicated.

  The inflation we currently have is worse than other countries which is partly down to Brexit. The economy overall is doing worse, again partly down to Brexit.

  It’s not just Brexit. There are many other problems with the country, such as the lack of choice between parties and no genuine socialist programme offered by any. Most people in the country want to nationalise energy and transport but no mainstream party will offer it in their manifesto. Minor parties that do offer it are effectively excluded by our first past the post system. And where is the open debate on whether we want to be involved in this war in Ukraine? We have no choice in the matter we are dragged into it without a vote and whether we like it or not.
• 
  55

  "Independent" Scotland joke!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.

  " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.

  try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  LoveUni how do you envisage Scotland becoming independent without “breaking up the UK”? Do you have in mind a way to do this, or is it simply an opaque way of saying you think Scotland is not allowed to choose independence?

  Scotland entered the union voluntarily in 1707 and the position of the UK has always been that it can leave voluntarily. If that changed then it would be good to know where we stand as a vassal state and give up the pretence.

  Could someone or anyone clarify why they think Scotland is a joke? Is it really your opinion that Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, and wherever else can run their own country, but Scots are incapable of doing so? Is this because you think Scots are too stupid, or lack some other core ability? Please clarify why you think it is a “joke”?

  I agree the SNP is utterly hopeless. I have nothing but contempt for the current leadership. Despite the goodwill I had toward Sturgeon when she took the leadership in 2014 she has thoroughly squandered it with her behaviour. Much of the rest of the SNP are useless too, the good ones have left or been sidelined.

  Scotland has thoroughly turned their backs on Sturgeon and her lackeys, and their suppor in the polls has plunged. Nevertheless support for independence in Scotland remains as strong as ever. If support for independence can survive the complete implosion of the SNP it speaks to the depth of conviction about the principle of sovereignty despite the betrayal (I don’t think that’s too strong a word) of those in the SNP who have squandered the trust of the people. This means the road to independence may be longer than we wished but the ultimate destination of an independent Scotland looks as sure as ever. That doesn’t mean it’s certain, but it remains the likely resolution to our ongoing journey.
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Your post is too long. If you would like to be read with care you could make it easier by being more concise.

  It’s interesting that you mention Carsten Thiede because I credit his book The Jesus Papyrus with getting me interested in Bible manuscripts and palaeography 25 years ago or so. It’s a well written book and certainly grabbed the attention of many people at the time, it’s central claim being that a small fragment of Greek text could be identified as a portion of Matthew from the first century. Unfortunately, as I didn’t appreciate at the time, the evidence he claimed in support of this was rather flimsy and relied on over-specific claims about how one or two letters of the alphabet were written in different time periods. While his work was popular in the media, scholars found his claims incredible based on shallow or non existent evidence.

  Another sensationalist claim about a first century Mark fragment was made more recently by Daniel Wallace but again proved to be unfounded.

  A real work of scholarship, God’s Library by Brent Nongbri has demonstrated to the satisfaction of many scholars that NT fragments generally should be dated later that previously believed, with no fragments definitely dated earlier than the third century.

  David Trobisch’s thesis about the second century edition of the New Testament relies on a broad base of evidence relating to the titles of NT works, the order of their arrangement in MS, the use of nomina sacra, and editorial details including John 21 and much more. In other words a serious contribution to scholarship unlike Carsten Thiede.
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  David Trobisch proposed that Polycarp presided over the editing of the New Testament based on the tradition that Polycarp knew the apostle John and the suggestion that John chapter 21 was added by an editor who vouched that the information in the gospel came from John and was trustworthy. The chapter also includes an explanation why the widespread expectation that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the apostle Peter was mistaken.

  You can read Trobisch’s explanation here.

  http://trobisch.com/david/wb/media/articles/20071226%20FreeInquiry%20Who%20Published%20Christian%20Bible%20BW.pdf
  

  Whether he is correct about Polycarp or not, his broader point about the New Testament being the product of a deliberate second century recension has a broader base of evidence.
• 
  11530

  It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

  by Newly Enlightened in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  original reddit post (removed).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  With judgement like that it sounds like they deserve each other. Once upon a time LE had regular people for supporters, but now this is all he can muster up. It’s like many have observed that JWs used to convert ordinary people to the religion back in the day. Now, apart from people born into the religion, it’s mostly societal misfits or people with severe psychological hardships who come into the congregation. LE would prefer his old supporters back of course, but in the absence of that he’ll take support, and especially money wherever he can find it. With whatever rose tinted glasses she’s looking at past interactions with LE, in a way she better hope LE doesn’t manage to rehabilitate his reputation because in normal circumstances he probably wouldn’t give her the time of day.
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  If it was Polycarp and his associates who removed the divine name from the Greek Old and New Testaments around 140 AD, then we have no NT manuscripts or even fragments that definitely go back as far as that. Brent Nongbri in his book God’s Library has argued that we can’t be sure any of the NT fragments date to earlier than third century. Even the fourth century uncials might not actually be from the fourth century but slightly later. The early manuscripts could be tested with radiocarbon dating but the institutions that hold them are reluctant to allow it.
• 
  81

  Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

  by pizzahut2023 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

  let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

  they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Just because Trinitarians have come up with a strategy of redefining basic words in the Bible doesn’t mean anyone else needs to be bound by those arbitrary rules. How do you think people read statements in the NT about God and Jesus before the Trinity doctrine was developed? How did a first century Christian read the following:

  Acts 10:38 God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

  As a matter of straight forward reading comprehension, this passage says that Jesus performed miracles because:

  a) he was God

  b) God was with him

  I guess you might not like either of those straightforward options and want a third option something like

  c) he was the fully divine and fully human Son of God the Father the first person of the tripersonal Godhead

  But do you realise just how ridiculous that makes reading such a simple verse which says that Jesus healed people “because God was with him”?
• 
  81

  Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

  by pizzahut2023 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

  let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

  they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  You are correct YHWH is in the MT of Psalm 102 I made a mistake about that. (Edit: No I checked again - I think I was right the first time, YHWH is not used in this verse in the MT.)

  But on the wider point what I am saying is that Kyrios in the LXX didn’t always translate YHWH. Sometimes it translated Adonai as it does in its second occurrence in Psalm 110.1.

  What did the original LXX of Psalm 101.26 read? If it was understood as a Messianic Psalm in the LXX then it’s possible that the “Lord” here translated Adonai rather than YHWH because the Davidic ruler was viewed as Adonai/Kyrios. The Messiah was not viewed as YHWH but as his servant, as the ubiquitous use of Psalm 110.1 in the NT demonstrates.

  This isn’t an argument Watchtower has ever made as far as I know. It is me trying to work out what is going on in Hebrews 1 and the Psalm it quotes.

  What convinces me that the early Christians viewed Jesus as distinct and subordinate to YHWH is that when applying the title “Lord” to Jesus they specifically chose Psalm 110.1 where the “Lord” is distinct and subordinate to YHWH. That’s a rather odd choice of what they were really trying to say is that Jesus = Jehovah, don’t you think?

  Psalm 110.1

  Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
  Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.2 Jehovah will send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion:
  Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

  Jesus, as “Lord”, is distinguished from and is subordinate to Jehovah/YHWH in this Psalm, and everywhere it is quoted in the NT, such as Acts 2 and elsewhere.

  As far as I can work out YHWH is always distinguished from Jesus in NT quotations of the OT. This is true in the vast majority of cases even Trinitarians would agree. There are a handful of cases such as Romans 10.13 and 1 Cor 2.16 where Trinitarians would argue YHWH = Jesus. (In particular the scholar David Capes makes this argument.) But even in those handful of cases it still makes sense to read the text as referring to God rather than Jesus. For example in Romans 10.13 people call of the name of Jehovah because it says God raised Jesus from the dead in verse 9. So an acclamation to God fits here too. In 1 Cor 2.16 Paul’s argument seems to be that scripture says we can’t know the mind of YHWH but that Christians can know ‘the mind of Christ’, who perfectly reflects God’s character. So again a careful distinction is being made between YHWH and Jesus that is lost if you fail to note the difference between YHWH and Jesus as ‘Lord’.