bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  49

  Elders in Spain Steal Millions from Congregation

  by cappytan in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  these men are appointed by holy spirit,.

  here is the source: http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2015/01/la-fiscalia-imputa-una-estafa-de-mas-de-170-millones-de-euros-a-una-congregacion-de-testigos-de-jeho-65161.php.

  basically, if you don't know spanish, it boils down to this: (my personal editorial of what i've read).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  If this is true someone added a lot of zeros to the numbers..
• 
  24

  Evidence regarding Daniel 11 & Antiochus IV

  by Bobcat in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i was doing research on daniel 8 and 11. what i was wondering was if there was any evidence that the jews saw daniel 8 and 11 fulfilled in antiochus iv.. the explained fulfillments (re: antiochus; non-wt explanations) make a lot of sense, but what specifically i was wondering was if the jews (after the time of antiochus iv) saw the daniel prophecies as being fulfilled in him?

  or if there are any threads that discuss this, a link would be appreciated.. thank you in advance.. take care.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I miss Leolaia. sigh.
• 
  16

  JW.org and recruitment

  by Illuminated in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  do you believe the marketing of jay w org will convert more people or help inactive ones remain indoctrinated?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  There is a very easy sanity check as for how much the jw.org / tv.jw.org actually help in terms of contacting people: Simply ask yourself when you went to lds.org, or scientology.com, or somewhere else and was so impressed by the site that you read several articles and thought about the information. this is how outsiders view jw.org.

  I am very sure the top brass view this as mostly an internal campaign and in terms of tv.jw.org this has IMHO pretty much been confirmed by the way the GB members say things on JW TV that makes little sense to outsiders (e.g. Anthony Morris in the last show said: "as many of you know I am a father"; this is not someone talking to an audience mainly composed of non-jws). 
• 
  29

  Meaningful Study

  by Awake at last in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i never thought i would be commenting, let alone starting a new topic in the category of bible research and study.

  anyone reading my comments on this site would have realised that i am the most unspiritual person to have ever stepped foot inside a kh.

  yet for the first time in my life, on saturday night, i did some meaningful bible study/research, on my own without a wtbts publication in sight, except the nwt bible.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  A fun thing to do when reading a WT is to see how many "study" questions can be answered by reading the paragraph. For instance:

  Q: Circuit overseers have noted what situation in many congregations?

  A: Circuit overseers around the world have noted that in many congregations, more needs to be done to train brothers—

  Q: (a) How do the Scriptures show the importance of training, and why should all of us be interested in this? (See footnote)

  A: As a shepherd, you no doubt realize that personal training is important. You know that more brothers are needed to keep existing congregations spiritually strong and to allow new congregations to be formed. (Read Isaiah 60:22.) You also know that God’s Word urges you to “teach others.” (Read 2 Timothy 2:2.) + 

  Q: (b) Why may some elders find it hard to train others?A: After you have taken care of family needs, job requirements, congregation responsibilities, and other urgent matters, there just seems to be no time left to train others in the congregation
  Q:  What might be one reason why training at times is postponed?A: some think: ‘Training is important, but it is not as urgent as other congregation matters that simply cannot wait. If I have to postpone training for a while, the congregation will continue to function.’
  
  and so on :-). 
• 
  27

  Did Polonius kill his wife? A problem with apolegetics

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.

  the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.

  this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Honesty: Any discussion regarding the reality of Jesus and His resurrection necessitates a degree of faith

  I think you have just accepted my original point without being aware of it.
• 
  27

  Did Polonius kill his wife? A problem with apolegetics

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.

  the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.

  this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  A person who believes the resurrection is fact does not need all the facts to believe in the Resurrection, because the Holy Spirit intimately and powerfully reveals Jesus to them.

  Since the holy spirit obviously choose not to reveal anything to me we can only agree to disagree. The intent of this topic is to examine the rational basis for believing in the stories in the bible and introducing the holy spirit is OT. 
• 
  27

  Did Polonius kill his wife? A problem with apolegetics

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.

  the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.

  this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Honesty: The argument in the OP is exactly trying to address the rational basis for forming ones view regarding Jesus and the bible in general. Asking if people think someone can change their mind is a distraction as their psychological predisposition is not really of importance. The issue is what the arguments in fact are and what is reasonable to believe. 
• 
  27

  Did Polonius kill his wife? A problem with apolegetics

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.

  the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.

  this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Thanks for all the replies, I hope to read them more fully later when I get off from work.

  Honesty: Why would anyone care to dissect the events surrounding Jesus' resurrection in order to know the truth about it?

  I think my answer would be that I feel the truth of these claims are important, and I think many Christians would agree -- if Jesus rose from the dead, if the bible is true or not, etc. is to them and I a matter of very great importance. I can accept (though I don't really understand) that you feel this is of no great importance, though I do wonder where you draw the lines of when it is important to know the truth or not: Christianity, all religious claims or all truth-claims in general. Is it for instance important to you that your spouse is faithful or not? If so, why is the truth of that more important than a religious claim, like if you are going to hell, heaven or no where at all? It would seem the later is a bigger deal all things considered.

  I can't understand why anyone would want to or even attempt to try to change a person's believe about Jesus' resurrection because I believe it is a very private matter between the person and the creator, if there really is one.

  I can answer for myself: If Jesus really rose from the dead, I would very much hope someone would take the time and effort to change my mind so I was in the right. 
  
• 
  51

  Is this a discussion forum or a debating forum , which is it ?

  by smiddy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you get confused sometimes whether this site is a discussion forum or a debating forum ?.

  just asking.

  whats your thoughts.. smiddy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I think that awful trollish poster who called him or herself "Debator" in one incarnation a few years back has ruined the word "debate" for me forever. 
• 
  27

  Did Polonius kill his wife? A problem with apolegetics

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.

  the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.

  this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  A basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material. 

  An example is the resurrection story of Jesus. The most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of Jesus that transformed their lives, etc.), and then point out these claims are best explained by Jesus rising from the dead. There are several difficulties with the assumptions in this argument, however I would claim the most fundamental is the attempt to draw certain conclusions on the material for or against the resurrection story. I think this tendency stem from four sources: (i) Saying "we cant know" sell inherently less books than a firm conclusion (ii) psychological need for closure; we want to know the truth and so desire certainty (iii) it seem unfair to treat historical events with the same rigor we demand today since the evidence we demand today would most certainly have been lost (iv) discussing the resurrection of a historical person is so removed from our common-sense experience we easily miss how flimsy the evidence is. 

  I think this is best illustrated by posing a hypothetical parallel event to the resurrection story which is inherently more plausible and better attested, however it has the big disadvantage of being posed in a situation where we are familiar with evaluating the evidence. The event is the following: Did Polonius, a hypothetical roman senator in the first century, kill his wife? The evidence is in the form of historical documents which allege that Polonius killed his wife, buried her on his property and bribed the slaves and staff into silence and we can suppose the documents are of the same sort as the gospels and letters of the bible. We know how to examine evidence of this form since it is done in trials every day, this is how I imagine this might go over.

  Firstly, it is very doubtful this could go to trial because without a body, murder scene, missing persons report etc. it is doubtful if the wife could be declared dead. Suppose we get around this and it goes to court, this is what the prosecutor do not have: 

  • A witness that can be sworn in and deliver testimony
  • A witness that can be interviewed pre-trail
  • A murder weapon
  • A murder scene
  • A body
  • Any sort of forensic evidence

  What the prosecutor does have is a number of documents. These documents alledge the murder took place, however they are at best hearsay: A parallel case to the documents is a person who did not hear a statement uttered himself, but heard the statement from someone else and is now reporting it. This is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay) However it gets much worse, since we do not have any reliable way to establish the documents themselves are reliable, who made them, who transcribed them, when they were written etc. the prosecutor cannot even convince the court he has hearsay evidence but argue that he might have hearsay evidence, or double hearsay evidence, or triple hearsay evidence etc. 

  Lets suppose we have evidence available of the sort we will never have for the bible: We have a written confession of Polonius himself, or rather since this account would no survive in it's original form, copies of such a confession. Even this would not be enough for a conviction, since there would be no forensic tools available to prove the written confession was actually from Polonius. In a modern setting this would be something akin to a machine typed A4-page with the supposed confession of a murder but with no way to forensic or geographical tie it to the accused asides the statement contained on the page. Would this even be admitted?

  The hypothetical murder would never be provable to the degree needed to secure a verdict today, not because the judge has a sudden fit of naturalism (as is the de-facto response to skepticism), but because the evidence is weak. 

  Naturally we are not discussing a rather every-day event like a husband murdering his wife, or an even rarer event like a complicated murder plot, but a suspension of the natural laws which inherently requires much stronger evidence than the simple murder plot.