A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????

by Terry 110 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

quietlyleaving

One does not need to kill to appreciate life.
Nvr - but to save life or allow life? That's how I'm seeing the significance of the story of the Jesus sacrifice.
Terry

As for free will....I have always believed there is none. True free will means that you are free to decide one way or another, or maybe the third way....with NO PUNISHMENT. No fear of death. No consequence. Once those things are added to the equation, free will ceases to exist.
Certainly, you've hit on the core issue, haven't you. Yes, I think so.
We aren't free to fly or be born small-boned when we are large or have a lovely voice when we croak like a frog.
Constraints press in everywhere.
At best, we cope.
The silly argument you often hear is God didn't want to create robots. Well, pardon me, but; yes he did! That is, if you believe what is written.
He holds the gun up to your head and says, "Smile and do it my way...or else!" That is as close to programming a response as you'll get.
Terry

Becoming hysterical when your beliefs are viewed as nonsense is just part and parcel of choosing such beliefs as are compatible with nonsense.
I thought insomniac was very respectful and non-hysterical in her replies to you. You are defending your position - is that hysteria. double standard imo
Worship trees if you like. I won't stop you. Elevate nature to a level which requires worship. I shall not interfere. Invoke mystical charms and cook up a batch of yak gonads and newt's eye if it eases your pain. But, don't expect me to nod in respectful silence about it.
You are figuratively holding obsolete aspects of paganism up to the light. Thats not fair imo. Fairer to compare obsolete aspects of science with obsolete aspects of religion, the benefits of religion with the benefits of science. (I say science cos I know you believe in it.)
I doubt a 38 year old needs defending. However, do if you must.
"Respectful" is an interesting choice of words.
I was called out for disrespecting Pagan religion. In other words, for MY not showing respect.
as far as the "obsolete" aspects of Pagan religion. Well, heavens to Betsy!
Science discards practices which prove themselvesineffective or harmful based on testing them against reality.
Could you kindly explain to me the process by which Paganism has updated and modernized its tenets in order to cast previous beliefs into the "obsolete" category?
The fact about religion is that it NEVER improves! There is no testing process of falsifiability by means of which it does so.
Certain Christians have set dates for Christ's return throughout all of the last 2000 years with utter failure. But, they continue happy as a lark none-the-less.
Jw's you'll recall simply declare Jesus as already having returned and continue as though it were proved.
JW's consider this an improvement and declare Christendom obsolete!
What parallel might you offer me to disabuse me of this prejudice on my part as regards Pagan religion today?
Tatiana

Certainly, you've hit on the core issue, haven't you. Yes, I think so.
We aren't free to fly or be born small-boned when we are large or have a lovely voice when we croak like a frog.
Constraints press in everywhere.
At best, we cope.
The silly argument you often hear is God didn't want to create robots. Well, pardon me, but; yes he did! That is, if you believe what is written.
He holds the gun up to your head and says, "Smile and do it my way...or else!" That is as close to programming a response as you'll get.
Here's a thought.....
IF humans truly have free will THEN it follows that Armageddon or the "end of the world" is NOT inevitable.
Correct?
Terry

Here's a thought.....
IF humans truly have free will THEN it follows that Armageddon or the "end of the world" is NOT inevitable.
Correct?
Remember Jonah preaching destruction on Ninevah?
It DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Jonah got all pouty and sullen when the message he preached (after having run away from the responsibility in the first place) did not bear out.
Jehovah explained to him that the result of the preaching (warning of destruction) changed the behavior of Ninevah and Jehovah relented.
Consequently, the Watchtower Society should jump on this right away! The failure of Armageddon to appear in previous predictions was the RESULT OF THE SUCCESSFUL PREACHING WORK of JWs!
I'd write the article for them if they asked me :)
writetoknow

Well my wife received a heart one month ago and blood - she died before they could open her up. The new heart pumps the blood so she now has life.
Blood does symbolize life and it does make an impression when you deal with it in the real world. Without it life doesn't exist and giving it provides life.
So the whole topic of blood really seems kinda stupid when we humans know that it's about the most precious thing we process and that is life.
I am thankful for the person that made such a huge sacarifice for my wife and it is very overwhelming and humbling how does one thank a person for such a gift it beyond me?
Many people have given their blood rightly or wrongly for this country and we know that blood is a gift to us rather we agree of disagree with the reason it was given.
If God set the bar so high that nothing would pay for the sins of the human race but His Son blood I consider it a gift that's not repayable and I am equally humbled and overwhelmed .
nvrgnbk

Interesting comments about free will to further illuminate Terry's fascinating conversation:
Is Free Will Incredible?
To some extent we’re all ideologues, at least in a passive sense. We’re all reluctant to let go of beliefs central to our worldview, even if the evidence is against us.Belief in god is notoriously difficult to abandon if it’s played a central role in your life, giving you reassurance and meaning. You don’t have to have been an active ideologue – a “blindly partisan advocate or adherent” of religion – for admitting you’re wrong to be a wrenching process. As Julia Sweeney documents so tellingly, letting go of god can wreak psychological havoc until a stable new worldview is established.
T he same is true of our beliefs concerning the soul and free will, maybe more so. Many people, often without realizing it, are committed to the implicit supernaturalism of supposing that something about them transcends causality when they make choices. It’s only when conventional wisdom about contra-causal free will is overtly challenged, as it is more and more these days by neuroscience, that people suddenly discover they’re wedded to a belief that can’t withstand scrutiny. Then the often difficult process of cognitive restructuring begins.
For those who have made a career of defending contra-causal free will, such as Tibor Machan, such restructuring would of course be doubly difficult. Machan is author of Initiative: Human Agency and Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000) , a lengthy defense of philosophical libertarianism, the thesis that human agents have the choice-making power to initiate causal chains de novo. He says our choices aren’t completely explicable by appealing to antecedent and surrounding c onditions , which means that human freedom is opposed to, or incompatiblewith, the thesis of determinism.
But Machan’s more recent writings suggest that he’s feeling considerable pressure on this incompatibilist view of free will . In a December, 2006 piece on making new years resolutions, he admitted that the idea that the will is independent of causation is increasingly under attack. Addiction researchers seek to understand why people get hooked, parents seek to understand why their kids misbehave, and criminologists seek to understand the causes of crime. In each case, the quest to understand behavior conflicts with the idea that people just choose their actions from some uncaused vantage point, the essence of contra-causal free will.
Now, on Freemarketnews.com, Machan poses the core question about such freedom: “Is Free Will Incredible?” Given his life-long commitment to philosophical libertarianism, he must of course answer no, but being otherwise naturalistic in his worldview, he has the devil of a time saying why the answer shouldn’t be yes: of course it’s incredible! As in his earlier article, he admits the naturalistic tide is running against him. The natural and social sciences all want explanations, and where explanations go incompatibilist free will – the mystery at the heart of human choice – must necessarily retreat. No surprise, then, that he concedes he’s fighting an “uphill battle” in defending the widespread assumption of uncaused or self-caused human choices.
Machan’s personal struggle mirrors the larger culture war between naturalism and supernaturalism in which the concept of the soul and its supernatural freedom is at stake. The reason he and so many others hold on for dear life to the soul (although since he’s “no mystic” he wouldn’t call it that) is, as the first paragraph of his article illustrates, the traditional Western folk concepts of moral responsibility, rationality and dignity are intertwined with the idea that we stand above natural cause and effect. The deterministic thesis that people are fully caused to become who they are and act as they do, the operating assumption in scientific explanations of behavior, obviously contradicts this idea. The conflict thus boils down to choosing between science and commonsense dualism about the self and its freedom and responsibility.
Part of Machan’s case in favor of free will (and against determinism) is that if we don’t transcend causation in some respect, then we’re not in a position to objectively assess arguments and evidence. He believes real rationality requires that we be free from determinism in reaching true conclusions about the world, otherwise we’d be “hard-wired to think in certain ways.” But there’s really no conflict between rationality and determinism, since being undetermined in our assessment of evidence and logic would only insert an element of randomness in the process. We wouldn’t, after all, want to be free to choose to follow (or not) the rules of evidence and logic; rather we rationally want to always assiduously obey them in judging what’s true and false, whether it’s syllogisms or testable hypotheses. If it happens we’re determined (hard-wired, culturally trained, or as is likely the case, both) to think logically, to respect the evidence of our senses, and to seek out the opinions of reliable experts, that’s a good thing, not something to rebel against. Libertarian free will of the sort Machan wants would make us less, not more rational. For elaborations of this point, see Supernaturalism and Explanation and Is Naturalism Self-Defeating? .
Machan also says that
... evidence about parts of the brain suggesting that our habits are innate is a bit fishy—all of that may well be a matter of correlation, not causation. Sure, ongoing practices leave traces in the brain, that's to be expected, and these are likely to become factors in the development of habits. But the initial practices could well have been a matter of free choice.
Here he contrasts free choice with whatever isn’t a matter of how learning happens in the physical brain, suggesting that there’s something non-physical or undetermined about the I that chooses the initial practices. But as a self-declared non-mystic, he has to specify how these choices come to pass, otherwise he’s indeed appealing to a mystery. Machan is caught between the naturalistic demand for explanatory transparency, which inevitably leads to scientific cause and effect understanding at the macro level of human behavior, and his desire for an agent that transcends cause and effect. Something’s got to give, and it won’t be science.
Although he bravely concludes that “there is a central element of freedom in human existence that is impossible to deny,” the fact is the denial is growing all around us. More and more scientists and philosophers, as Machan acknowledges, are publicly announcingthat we don’t have contra causal free will, and they do so on excellent logical and empirical grounds. Further, and crucially, philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, Owen Flanagan, Joshua Greene and Patricia Churchland and organizations such as the Center for Naturalism are engaged in reconfiguring our concepts of freedom, choice, dignity and responsibility so that we can in good conscience accept this denial. We can relax about repudiating libertarian freedom since these revised concepts, which have long-standing historical precedents, give us everything we need. True, we have to abandon the idea we can take ultimate credit and blame for ourselves and our acts, but that isn’t needed for compassionate and effective systems of responsibility, creativity and control. In fact it’s what largely stands in the way.
But of course Machan is championing what most people, wedded to the supernatural soul and its power, want to hear, namely that we are exceptions to determinism. So it’s likely that in the short run he’ll find considerable support for taking the contrarian line against mainstream science. But that doesn’t make him right. If and when Machan finally lets go of free will he’ll discover , as did Julia Sweeney, that things don’t fall apart, rather they come together quite nicely.
TWC May, 2007
Juno Walker at Letters From Le Vrai also comments on Machan.
writetoknow

I read an article in Wired this past week titled, "The New Atheism." It was very well written and quite interesting, thought provoking, and a little frustrating. Here's why.

The New Atheists, as the author names them, have good criticisms of religion and American Christianity in general. Religion is used as a crutch, as a hindrance, as an escape, as a way to avoid upsetting thoughts that might challenge their conception of the world. The New Atheists are people who've called this what it is - bogus - and are, sometimes quite radically, trying to make people face the music and question their lives. I'm down with this.

What I'm not down with is the rest of the "project," if it can be called that, which is, for all intents and purposes, a completely ignorant perspective on the enlightenment, faith, and meaning. At least to the extent that this article portrays them, none of these "new Atheists" recognize the similarities between or make any attempts to differentiate themselves from the stalwart Atheists of our recent history who failed so miserably to make God useless. When Russell, Freud, Marx, Engles, etc. failed so totally, why do these new comers think they'll succeed?

When I say "fail", I mean that they failed to create either a successful society or successful people from their radical atheist philosophies. When I say "successful", I of course mean happy, productive, and fulfilled. The greatest thinkers of the 20th century wrote volumes of philosophy that culminated in founding several societies which ended in abject poverty and total despair. I know religion has a sordid legacy as well, but given that atheism and "reason" have done no better, doesn't it seem like perhaps the real problem with the way we're living is something else?

So that's my issue with this. I don't want to see any more religion vs. reason debates, because they're missing the boat, and degrade into a spectrum of useless agendas that have all been tried at one time or another in different parts of the world and have, quite literally, largely failed. Religion is not the problem, and reason is not the problem. The problem with people is that regardless of what they claim to believe, they ultimately believe that the world's problems are someone else's fault, and that if they could only fix this or that about other people then things would be fine.

On a less preachy note, I also take issue with the "New Atheists" for failing to improve on what I consider to be the enlightenment's largest failing: the topic of death. Regardless of what you believe, you are going to die. I'm not trying to pull Pascal's wager out here - I simply want to know how an atheist deals with death. I believe that death is the most defining and common aspect of human experience, and it does an excellent job of crushing our idealistic forays into the greatness of reason with, well, reason itself. The bottom line is that regardless of how productive, honest, wholesome, and critical you are during your life, you're still going to die, and time will pass on without you, and everything you've worked for and built will be destroyed and forgotten. Can you deal with that and not fall into nihilism? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm just saying I've never seen it done before.

What most atheists do is to construct some wonderful ideal out of productivity or an abstract "goodness" to hide behind, and claim that this makes life worth living. It sounds quite valuable, but underneath the gloss it's just an intellectual shield to keep the idea of total nothingness away. It's not real critical thought - it's ignorance; it's hiding from the truth. It is, in short, everything that atheists accuse religious people of. This is, I think, one of the singular things keeping most non-religious agnostics, who seem to make up the majority of Western society today, from diving headfirst into real and devoted atheism.

But maybe I'm wrong. Was the enlightenment really a failure, or did it just hit a few setbacks, and the vast and lofty promises of utopian reason are simply yet to be realized? Maybe Marx had more to offer than I give him credit for. Regardless, I thank the well-mannered atheists who are truly seeking for the truth and truly convinced of God's absence, because if nothing else they do an excellent job of providing much needed criticism for a cultural church mistakenly convinced of it's total supremacy in all things.
fifi40

Dear Writetoknow
All around us in the animal kingdom and all types of plants etc there is death.......not questioned just quietly accepted.
I often wonder whether the origins of religion had their roots in man's fear of death............a refusal to believe that we are like all other living things around us and that at some point we are just nothing.
It also seems to me that there is nothing left to remove from atheists..............they accept that one day they will die.
If people of faith did not have their various hopes for a life after death scenario how many would actually continue to serve their God?
It seems to me that those of a religious belief may be the ones doing the hiding.
Is religion just a mystical shield to keep the idea of total nothingness away?
You do what you can with your life............I appreciate my time, I appreciate the beauty of this planet we live in, I appreciate the precious gift I have in my son and the time I will have to spend with him, I appreciate those I choose to take this journey with........if I can add some good whilst I am alive that is okay........do we need a 'sense of purpose' or do we just accept that life is what it is.......ours for a short while.
writetoknow

By the way the last two post are not my writings they are someone else. YOU SHALL SURELY DIE!
GOOD MORNING CLASS: Today I issue a bold challenge to all atheists - a challenge that not even the most educated and meticulous thinkers of them will be able to satisfactorily answer in any way. The only thing they will be able to do in effort to effectually rebutt this challenge is to babble unintelligently.
The challenge has to do with the issue of human death. The sentence of death (which comes from God as a result of mankind having committed high treason against God's kingdom in the first man Adam) is one that every person of mankind cannot escape as long as mankind exists. (The actual experience of death is one that few humans will escape). Every atheist BELIEVE and even KNOW that every person of mankind, must die. However, even though they believe and know this fact, not one of them can supply SCIENTIFIC PROOF to that effect. Their belief is not based on any type of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
This is so because no scientific proof actually exists to that effect. If there was scientific proof, it would also point to a specific time, date and type of death. But despite the fact that their death is inevitable, there is no so-called "scientific proof" to that effect. The only real proof is found only in the unadulterated teachings of Holy Writ - the Bible. Duly noting that death has prevailed over all mankind throughout their history is not proof that all will be overtaken by death in the future. It is only proof that death has prevailed thusfar, (since there will be certain people who will not be overtaken by death in the future).
As examples to prove that there is an absence of scientific proof for the inevitability of death, carefully examine the many cases wherein such evidence should in all rightness be used to aid the most professional of physicians in predicting the time of death of certain ill patients. There are many cases wherein desperately ill patients did not die as physicians predicted. Had the physicians actually made their predictions according to available credible "Scientific Evidence", they would not have erred in their judgments. They made the errors because there was no credible scientific proof to base such judgments. This principle also holds true in cases wherein physicians erroneously predict certain human fetuses will cause the death of their mothers.
Therefore, since atheists believe and know that death is inevitable, but reject the only source which presents the only real evidence of the inevitability of death, how is it that atheists who insists on scientific proof know and believe the inevitability of death in the absolute absence of scientific evidence. I challenge the most "educated" atheists to supply SCIENTIFIC PROOF for their belief and knowledge that death is inevitable.
I chuckle at atheists when I think about the fact that even in the midst of the absence of scientific proof of the inevitability of death, there is no sensible physician who will make the prediction that humans will begin to live forever at some future point in human history. It is is logical to think that since there is no so-called "scientific proof" of the inevitability of human death, and since atheists say they trust nothing but scientific evidence, some of their "experts" would predict that man will one day conquer death. But no sensible atheist will predict such with any seriousness, because he or she knows that as long as mankind exists, their death is inevitable, even in the midst of the absence of scientific proof to that effect.
This proves that you don't always have to have "scientific proof" to know the reality of an entity's existence.
IT IS FOOLISH TO DEBATE WITH AN ATHEIST
Numerous atheists have invited or challenged me to debate with them about the existence of God. I always turn down such invitations. Such a debate is like them denying their own existence and me debating with them about their true existence. It is a waste of time trying to convince someone that they exist while they deliberately deny it. The debater becomes a greater fool than the denier. Atheists (fools) have said that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). But true Christians should never answer fools according to their folly (Proverbs 26:4-5).
Evidence of God's existence is so overwhelming that it far, far exceeds any of the evidence any true Christian can present in a debate. Since the greater evidence is denied, there's no convincing by the lesser.
What is this overwhelming evidence? God has supplied all mankind with atleast two great witnesses of His existence. It is the existence of the vast HEAVENS and all therein and the EARTH and all hereon. These two contain more evidence than can ever be fully known and understood by man. Nothing that exists could have brought itself into being out of its none existence. The Almighty God had to therefore create it (Psalms 102:25; Genesis 1:1).
Also, no part of God's creation can sustain itself apart from God sustaining it. God is the fountain and sustainer of all things (Colossians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:12). So just the mere existence of the heavens and the earth is overwhelming proof of God's existence.
But atheists discount this overwhelming proof while asking for proof. Since they deny the overwhelming evidence, much of which they can monitor through their senses and through technological innovations - their own existence included, no debate that presents the proof will convince them. Therefore it is utterly worthless for true Christians to debate with atheists about the existence of God.
Since atheists rejects the overwhelming evidence, we see proof that atheism is a deliberate rejection of the evidence and His existence. This clearly proves that atheism is not about proof and evidence, but is about rejecting the fundamental principles of life. Atheism's chief purpose of existence is to deny the existence of God in the midst of overwhelming proof. No atheist will admit these facts. But again, this is the nature of satanic atheism: to refuse to admit the truth.
What is belief? What is faith?

Although the Christian faith is not based purely on evidence, it is definitely supported by evidence. Faith is not about turning off the brain and merely relying on the heart, or squashing reason in favor of emotion. No, Christian faith is about seeking and knowing Jesus with all facets of the human character. It's not a "blind faith" as I once thought... It's a "calculated faith" based on a preponderance of the evidence. Well, I've collected the evidence, and I've put it on trial... After a number of months in the jury room, I have returned with my personal verdict... Jesus Christ is who he claims to be... the Son of God who came to this earth about 2,000 years ago to offer true and lasting hope for mankind.

OK, now what...? I intellectually believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, that God exists, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is his Son... How does this affect me? What is faith, as far as it concerns me?

I love the metaphor of a chair... Find the chair closest to you. Look at it closely. Examine its design. Is it structurally sound? Is it sufficiently engineered? Will the materials chosen by the manufacturer support your weight?

Most likely, you picked a chair that you believe will support you. That's belief. You applied logic, knowledge and experience to make an informed intellectual decision.

Now sit in the chair... That's faith! At one point, intellectual assent only goes so far. True living requires that we put our beliefs into action. Intellectual belief without actionable faith is hollow and meaningless...

Have you ever heard about the guy who walked a tight rope across Niagra Falls? Many people watched him do it. To them he asked, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls?" They all replied, "Yes." They had already seen him do it.

Then he pushed a wheel barrow on a tight rope across Niagra Falls. When he completed the feat, he asked the onlookers, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow?" To that they replied unanimously, "Yes." Because they saw him do that too.

Finally, a buddy of the tight rope walker climbs into the wheel barrow and the tight rope walker pushes him across the Falls. Wow, what a daring feat! When they finished, the tight rope walker asked the crowd, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow with a person in it?" To that they exclaimed, "Yes!" For they were now believers in this guy's awesome abilities.

Then he looked at the crowd and asked, "Who's next?"

There you have it... Belief vs. Faith...!

A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????

Share this