by LittleToe 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hehehe.
Didier:Sadly you're right!
Gyles:
Maybe I should just post a link to an idiots guide Glossary
Ergo:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/glossaries.html
http://www.providencepca.com/essays/glossary.html
Maybe someone else can hunt one down that has a reasonable definition for "depraved"
Too funny! Am I to expect 20 pages of nitpicking over the scientific veracity of God; or will some get the point and try finding out what some of those theological terms actually mean so we can have a discussion on a level playing field?
Theology is much nitpicking about nothing God keeps not showing up. It's that darn invisibilty handicap that he's got. Funny how he can create visible things, but can't make himself so.
S
There is but one only living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
I've never heard such a beautiful and moving description of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. *Sniff*
Thanks for the links little toe. I for the moment am trying to learn the nuances of what evolution involves. I have had 20 years of theology. (I read quite a bit as a JW about theology, so those links are somewhat familiar to me. I was a bad JW while I was in. I did read about other religous theories...) As I never gave the scientific/evolutionist pov a chance, that is what I am doing. I have to say I find it much more satisfying, but it is always fascinating to find out what a person believes, and why they believe it as well.
Ross
The rub is that Creationists and creationists and ID-ers alike need to know some facts and special terms to converse about Evolution. There is something to discuss; dem bones dem bones dem dry bones.
A theologian might feel that the lack of vocabulary on the part of a evolutionist would limit their appreciation of the subtleties of theology. They'd be right.
An atheist thinks the lack of god limits their requirement for special god-discussing vocabulary.
You have to have car mechanics before you need special language to discuss car mechanics and their attributes. If someone can't prove the existence of atoms to you, you're not going to require the special terms used to discuss Quantum Mechanics and Quarks. I suppose a Sasquatchologist might require special terms to discuss Sasquatches, but
LT, I'm not into debating 'til the cows come home, just learning, observing and using that gelly matter in my own head. Thank you for posting the links.
~Sue
LT LOL ...
This is a cut and past from this thread : http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/129264/1.ashx
I guess it's all about how
Science and religions fill the blanks (nobody is supposed to believe what is improvable YET) since you do believe in blank filling with not proof you are trusting someone (a human being - in other word a scientist is not God each have their own speciallity and they do not agree on everything either)Spirituality is not a religion - But religions use spirituality in the right or the wrong way (that's when in spirituality you have to understand where religious people had filled the blanks from what they have been inspired in there own time whith they're own knowledges). Spîrituality is about to catch what is essential in life in time (and to understand that everything is contextual). A bold statement can be wrong as it can be right (depends on what we are talking about in the details).
In other word religions are as limited as sciences (what they can deal with in the matter at their own stage) when spirituality is totally open to whatever have it's importance in context.
Generally I've no problem understanding the terms used in theological documents. It's just that they don't refer to anything real. Occasionally I encounter terms I'm not familiar with and look them up. They never seem to refer to anything real either. A good example is the ontological argument. I'd heard it referred to but didn't know what it meant so I looked it up. Surely not, I thought. I must be missing something. But every definition was essentially the same. Now maybe it really is me who's at fault here. I mean there's no shortage of great minds - Descartes, Leibniz, Godel - who have discussed this argument as if it was more than the most simplistic form of mental masturbation but I just can't figure out why.
My view is that the emperor of theology is prancing around bollock naked and everyone's too embarrassed to say so. There's simply no substance to the subject because it refers to wholly imaginary beings and concepts.
Regardless of the substance of the subject matter, on a regular basis Christians get taken to task for their beliefs. If you're going to engage the individuals then you had best have half a clue as to what they believe and why they are using certain terms (e.g. depravity). The alternative is continued miscommunication. If you're happy with that then so be it. Personally I don't find it satisfactory, and tend to read up on subjects that I want to contribute to, especially if I know little about them.
Scientists require this when engaging in discussions about evolution, and rightly so. Its a shame to see this not reciprocated when folks attempt to engage in discussion (or is it merely attack) of Christian beliefs. Most of the contributions to these subjects show a woeful ignorance, demonstrating vestiges of a WTS education.
Of course there will be those who simply don't want to expend the effort, especially if they feel the topic is meaningless, and I can totally understand that. But, simply put, it cuts both ways. Ignorant (and I don't mean any of this in a pejorative sense) creationists make fools of themselves in discussions on evolution and ignorant [usually] atheists [often] make fools of themselves in discussions on beliefs.
Gyles:
An atheist thinks the lack of god limits their requirement for special god-discussing vocabulary.
I understand this. Empathy would reveal that a Creationist might feel a similar way about evolution due to missing links, etc.. My point is merely that both are ignorant starting points to enter into a discussion.
