Staying a Christian Upon Leaving (cont.)

by serotonin_wraith 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  serotonin_wraith

  jgnat (or NW!):

  I work from the knowledge that God exists, based on my own, first-hand experience. Everything flowed from that.

  Like the man believing in the invisible troll in my example works from the 'knowledge' it exists, and attributes things to the invisible troll when there are other explanations available.

  Weasel words. Respond more completely, and I'll continue to dignify this discussion.

  It's the simplest explanation for what you've done.

  I say there are underlying principles that guide us on what we apply and what we discard. Living by underlying principles is not cherry picking.

  What made you decide what these underlying principles were?

  I've given two examples and two religions who do just that.

  In the first 1800 years of Christianity, slavery was an accepted practice. They had the same book you have, so are you saying you are more enlightened than all the priests and clergymen who studied it in great detail over hundreds of years?

  But I thought your argument is that goodness can be learned from the examples provided in nature. Are you saying that deceit, injustice, cruelty, and cannibalism are "good"?

  I wasn't saying 'good' can be learned from the animals, just that they do good things too. Like us, they can also do bad things. But they are usually punished for it in some way by the other animals.

  But, people are not hard wired for 'good'.

  I think for the most part we are. If you surveyed a thousand people at random, the number of murderers in this group for example, would be in the minority.

  That's cute, you idealist you. How about those chimpanzees, eh? Where did they learn to murder?

  Animals know what murder is. They kill other animals for food, if they're not being hunted themselves. But most of us only murder when we feel it is justified.

  Going back to the part I pasted in the first post, I mentioned that as well as acting in a way that causes the least suffering to those around us, we also need to take into account what will help us survive. For example, if someone is attacking and trying to kill our family, killing the attacker is justified if it is the only way to stop them.

  Amongst the chimpanzees, families can fight other families over territory. For them it becomes justified because if there isn't enough food to share between two familes, some may die. From the essay you linked to, there are some theories as to why young chimpanzees are killed. If the offspring comes from 'inferior' parents, they may feel the need to kill it off so that the alpha parents' children are put first. If they come from stronger parents, it stands to reason that they would have the better chance of survival.

  Humans have no need to do this as we are part of a global community, and we see other humans as part of our 'family' now.

  Another example of cannibalism amongst animals would be when spiders eat each other. After mating, sometimes the female will eat the male. One is sacrificed for the good of the many (their children).

  The mother, after laying her eggs, allows herself to be eaten by her offspring. She sacrifices herself for her children, as human parents have been known to do in other ways.

  You haven't defined 'good' yet.

  Acting in a way that causes the least suffering, while keeping in mind our need to survive as a species.

  Most of the examples you've given are from Judeo-Christian thought.

  Out of all the laws in the Bible, I find I can only agree with a few of them. Namely- do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not commit adultery. The 'golden rule' is a good one too. That's five.

  Let's not forget that there was a moral code written down at least 300 years before the Bible was written too (see my last post). We knew what was right and wrong before Judeo-Christian teachings.

  Murderers and tyrants survive, dominate, and conquer. To be at the "top" all that is required is superior breeding and staying power .

  We do not need to have a battle to be at the top. We can survive without it. In most cases, we try to put murderers behind bars and remove tyrants from power. If they want to act in that manner, they have to either hide or be protected in some way in order to continue that lifestyle.
• 

  jgnat

  NW: You haven't defined 'good' yet. SW: Acting in a way that causes the least suffering, while keeping in mind our need to survive as a species. Out of all the laws in the Bible, I find I can only agree with a few of them. Namely- do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not commit adultery. The 'golden rule' is a good one too. That's five.

  ...where did you get that definition from? I do not see it in your examples from nature, sorry. Yet you were quite able to pick out these fundamental principles from the bible, the five you mentioned. I maintain that your definition of 'good' is from the bible, though you have rejected the source.

  NW: I work from the knowledge that God exists, based on my own, first-hand experience...SW: Like the man believing in the invisible troll in my example ...

  But...you do not have my experience. The simplest explanation I have for what happened to me (occam's razor) is that God intervened.

  NW: Weasel words. Respond more completely, and I'll continue to dignify this discussion. SW: It's the simplest explanation for what you've done.

  That's not an explanation, that's a judgement call. You've judged my explanation of "underlying principles" as cherry picking. Explain why you believe that and I'll continue the discussion on the bible. Don't, and I won't.

  SW: What made you decide what these underlying principles were?

  First of all, Jesus helped. He told us what they are. Myself, I've included "Do no harm" and "Reverence life". Like you, I've chosen those underlying principles based on my background, culture, and direct experience.

  NW: I've given two examples and two religions who do just that. SW: In the first 1800 years of Christianity, slavery was an accepted practice. They had the same book you have, so are you saying you are more enlightened than all the priests and clergymen who studied it in great detail over hundreds of years?

  Yes. But not just me personally. Society has moved on. Just as Jesus killed the idea of divine kings and raised the caring of the needy to the divine.

  NW: But I thought your argument is that goodness can be learned from the examples provided in nature. Are you saying that deceit, injustice, cruelty, and cannibalism are "good"? SW: I wasn't saying 'good' can be learned from the animals, just that they do good things too. Like us, they can also do bad things.

  So you are right back where you started. You have not provided any credible source for your instinctual concept of "good".

  NW: But people are not hard wired for 'good'. SW: I think for the most part we are. If you surveyed a thousand people at random, the number of murderers in this group for example, would be in the minority.

  That is not a credible example. There could be many influences on a person that would determine if he would follow up on an impulse to murder. Only one might be for moral reasons. Another might be fear of consequences, or social taboo. For this debate to go forward we will have to define what sort of empirical evidence could be presented for or against. Is mankind hardwired for 'good'? In the absence of social influences, is a child born with a fundamental set of morals?

  SW: Going back to the part I pasted in the first post, I mentioned that as well as acting in a way that causes the least suffering to those around us, we also need to take into account what will help us survive. For example, if someone is attacking and trying to kill our family, killing the attacker is justified if it is the only way to stop them.

  That is a value judgement, based on your concept of what is 'good'. The observed behavior of the chimpanzees may or may not have a justifiable reason. As human beings, we try and put some rationale behind it, but we are only speculating.

  SW: Humans have no need to do this as we are part of a global community, and we see other humans as part of our 'family' now.

  It would be great if people really did have that global view. I maintain that most of humanity does not.

  SW: Let's not forget that there was a moral code written down at least 300 years before the Bible was written too (see my last post). We knew what was right and wrong before Judeo-Christian teachings.

  Remember, I am not a bible-thumper. I don't require that the bible be divine to bolster my faith. If God is all and in all, there would have been His teachings in all societies literatures and peoples before the bible was written. All I am trying to say is that your concept of 'good' comes from the Judeo-Christian ethic, whether you recognize it or not..
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  where did you get that definition from?

  From my brain. From human nature.

  I do not see it in your examples from nature, sorry.

  Not even these?

  "

  A bird on its own is at more risk from predators, and so they fly in flocks. There is safety in numbers. As a family of meercats leave the burrow to find food, one will remain to look after the babies. During the winter in Antarctica, penguins will huddle together for warmth. If a penguin tries to steal the child of another, due to their own offspring dying, other penguins will not allow it to happen. When bats go out to hunt, they may not all catch a meal. So back at their home, those who have caught prey will donate their blood to those without. The favour can be returned if they ever return without catching anything. If a wolf kills a family member, the others will drive it away as punishment."

  Yet you were quite able to pick out these fundamental principles from the bible, the five you mentioned.

  I agreed with them before I read them. Plenty of people haven't read the Bible, and they still know what's good or not.

  I maintain that your definition of 'good' is from the bible, though you have rejected the source.

  In that case, you have rejected the Book of the Dead as your moral guide.

  But...you do not have my experience. The simplest explanation I have for what happened to me (occam's razor) is that God intervened.

  Without knowing what happened, I cannot comment on this.

  You've judged my explanation of "underlying principles" as cherry picking. Explain why you believe that

  I believe this because you have rejected other principles found in the Bible which are less favourable.

  First of all, Jesus helped. He told us what they are. Myself, I've included "Do no harm" and "Reverence life". Like you, I've chosen those underlying principles based on my background, culture, and direct experience.

  Are you saying that if the New Testament had not been written, you would be stoning people? You needed to see Jesus speak against that before you realized it was bad? If someone reads the Bible from start to finish, I hope they reach Matthew pretty quickly, otherwise who knows what they will do!

  Jesus also said 'until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will be any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished'.

  'If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?'

  So he can be seen to be upholding the Mosaic law there.

  Some more choice words from Jesus:

  'Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law And a man's foes will be they of his own household'.

  'Let the dead bury their dead'.

  'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch...and men cast them into the fire, and they are burned'.

  I stand by my cherry picking statement.

  Yes. But not just me personally. Society has moved on.

  Precisely. Society has changed. The Bible has not.

  So you are right back where you started. You have not provided any credible source for your instinctual concept of "good".

  I wasn't using the animals as our source for what is good. I'm saying that whatever makes us act good can be found in animals, who do not even read books.

  There could be many influences on a person that would determine if he would follow up on an impulse to murder. Only one might be for moral reasons. Another might be fear of consequences, or social taboo.

  I suppose a survey would have to be taken in which the question went something like:

  Why do you choose not to kill?

  A. I find it morally wrong.

  B. I want to avoid punishment, otherwise I would.

  But until this survey is carried out, people will have to decide for themselves which seems more likely.

  In the absence of social influences, is a child born with a fundamental set of morals?

  Speaking from experience, I was taught that homosexuals were bad and that women were worth less than men. I was also taught that most people on earth deserved death. These aren't views I shared, so my personal sense of morality won out despite outside influence.

  The observed behavior of the chimpanzees may or may not have a justifiable reason. As human beings, we try and put some rationale behind it, but we are only speculating.

  There is no speculating that the one mother-daughter murdering 'team' stopped killing once they had children of their own. If it was just behaviour with no justification, why did it stop? Some factor must have had an influence on them.

  Here's another page on that issue:

  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11844-stressed-female-chimps-kill-rivals-young--.html

  It would be great if people really did have that global view. I maintain that most of humanity does not.

  Fair enough, but I see people giving money to those in need in far off lands, trying to do something about the atrocities in far off lands and accepting people from poorer countries to work alongside them in the more developed countries. I see people from all over the world working together to find cures. I see people around the world sharing what they have, or exchanging what they have for what they need. I see the concern for those in So Cal right now with the fires there, just as I saw the concern for those in New Orleans when the flood happened and the concern for those who were caught up in the Asian tsunami.

  I maintain that it does, and I say that based on good reason.

  If God is all and in all, there would have been His teachings in all societies literatures and peoples before the bible was written. All I am trying to say is that your concept of 'good' comes from the Judeo-Christian ethic, whether you recognize it or not..

  Then why can't you say it comes from Egyptian teachings originally?
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Pascal's Wager comes to mind in the midst of all this.

  Sorry to butt in.

  Jeff
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  The more the merrier.

  Are you saying Pascal's Wager is a good argument?

  If so, it fails because there are so many gods to choose from. Why not believe in Allah, because if you don't you may end up in his hell? Why not believe in Osiris incase you end up in duat? Why not believe in the Norse gods incase you end up in helheim?
• 

  jgnat

  NW: where did you get that definition [of good] from? SW: From my brain. From human nature.

  We are in a discussion here. I can't read your mind, so you are going to have to explain further. I read your standard paragraph, and I provided some refutations to some of your conclusions. To honor your conclusion, you must address those. Otherwise it's not a discussion we are having, but a shouting match across the fence.

  SW: I do not see it in your examples from nature, sorry. Not even these? (another example)

  You provide examples of kind animals, I provide examples of cruelty. It's a wash. In order for your theory to hold water, you have to prove that all survival behavior is "good" and worthy of imitating.

  NW: Yet you were quite able to pick out these fundamental principles from the bible, the five you mentioned. SW: I agreed with them before I read them. Plenty of people haven't read the Bible, and they still know what's good or not.

  You are missing my point. I'm not talking about the superiority of bible. I am disputing your claim that your internal constructs of 'good' are independent of your Judeo-Christian upbringing. I also dispute that all people agree on what is 'good'. Get away from the North American version, and I think that will become clearer.

  IF THERE IS a universal "knowing" of what is good, I think it would bolster my belief in a good God. A universalism of thought, that transcends the hard lessons of evolution.

  SW: Jesus also said (other examples)....I stand by my cherry picking statement.

  But none of those statements did he say were the "highest" did he? He left it for one verse alone. Everything else he said must be measured against that, the unbreakable stone.

  NW: You've judged my explanation of "underlying principles" as cherry picking. Explain why you believe that. SW: I believe this because you have rejected other principles found in the Bible which are less favourable.

  So you reject my explanation of "higher principles"? Why? Again, I can't drill in to your brain. Work it, man. Express yourself.

  SW: Are you saying that if the New Testament had not been written, you would be stoning people?

  What can I say? Because of where I am in history and place, I am a Christian. I cannot help the background. The New Testament was written and available. It is also written that if the followers of Christ had been suppressed, the very rocks would cry out. So no, I don't think I would have been left deficient of these great thoughts. Some other great piece of literature or event would have shaped our society towards good.

  NW: There could be many influences on a person that would determine if he would follow up on an impulse to murder. Only one might be for moral reasons. Another might be fear of consequences, or social taboo. SW: I suppose a survey would have to be taken...

  The survey wouldn't work either. Are people good personal witnesses of their own motivations? And you are wrong about finding out. There are social scientists and scholars working on these very questions (nature or nurture). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_or_nurture

  NW: All I am trying to say is that your concept of 'good' comes from the Judeo-Christian ethic, whether you recognize it or not.. SW: Then why can't you say it comes from Egyptian teachings originally?

  ....and why couldn't it be God directing it all? I understand if you've don't buy it. But it's a different matter all together to explain to me all the logic that got you to that point. One-sentence answers won't do it for me.
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  We are in a discussion here. I can't read your mind, so you are going to have to explain further. I read your standard paragraph, and I provided some refutations to some of your conclusions. To honor your conclusion, you must address those.

  I'm not deliberately avoiding what you're saying. My answer to where we get our morals is the brain and human nature. That's it. That's my answer. I thought I had addressed your concerns with my conclusions. I feel like I'm repeating much of this now, but we should clear it up.

  You provide examples of kind animals, I provide examples of cruelty. It's a wash. In order for your theory to hold water, you have to prove that all survival behavior is "good" and worthy of imitating.

  The cruelty we see in animals is from a human perspective. Some animals can cheat, steal, murder without justification, etc. But this is done by a minority, and other animals in the group will punish it in some way for not following the 'rules'.

  Amongst humans it is the minority who do cruel things too. So far, there is a match. Most follow a code, a few do not.

  Other things we may see as cruel if humans did them, are not cruel according to the animals' code. For example, if a woman murdered her husband straight after sex and ate his body, that would be wrong. But when a praying mantis does it, it is to ensure the survival of their species.

  We do not imitate every animal, there is no set of rules applicable to them all. We are so different to most of them that this would be impossible. But we understand when they do something we'd never consider, it is to help their species survive, which ties into my version of morality.

  I'll add a link to a documentary showing how humans and animals act in a fair manner with each other because it benefits them, and for those who break the rules there are consequences. You don't have to watch it, but it may make it easier to understand what I'm saying.

  Richard Dawkins: Nice Guys Finish First

  http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=PornoSatan&p=r

  I am disputing your claim that your internal constructs of 'good' are independent of your Judeo-Christian upbringing.

  We already had a moral code written down before the Judeo-Christian religion got started. It was obviously independent of Judeo-Christian teachings, seeing as Judeo-Christian teachings didn't exist at that time!

  We could consider countries that have naturally moved away from religion too (which would include the Judeo-Christian religion).

  http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3

  "According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies-countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom-are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious."

  I also dispute that all people agree on what is 'good'.

  I'll agree with you on this. People in Muslim countries may feel it is 'good' to kill homosexuals or apostates. People who stop reading 'moral' laws like this in holy books find they can't agree that this kind of thing is good. Human nature/the brain tells them otherwise. The Christians and Muslims who find those rules wrong are choosing not to follow all the rules of their 'morally superior' book. They are relying on their own morals instead.

  IF THERE IS a universal "knowing" of what is good, I think it would bolster my belief in a good God. A universalism of thought, that transcends the hard lessons of evolution.

  I should have been clearer, it's my mistake. What is good is what causes the least suffering and keeps in mind our survival at the moment in time we think about it. Changes in our environment can change what we see as good or not. What is good today may not be in 1000 years- but we still 'know' what is good for us right here, right now.

  But none of those statements did he say were the "highest" did he? He left it for one verse alone.

  And if we check Leviticus 26:14-46 we can see many, many verses about the punishments from God for disobeying these laws you decide to disobey.

  It would be reasonable to conclude that anything said AFTER the 'highest' rule would be more up to date information from Jesus too. If he corrects himself with the highest rule, why wouldn't you see him correcting himself with things said after that verse?

  Even if this one verse is to be regarded as the one to follow, Jesus' commandment to love God would mean his commands should be followed, like a loving worshipper would, wouldn't it? Loving thy neighbour as thyself would be protecting them from harm, like those who worship other gods or people who dabble in the occult. How can it just mean protecting them from liars and robbers and murderers? Aren't these other things dangerous too? Wouldn't an acceptance of homosexuality lead to more and more people risking their eternal souls?

  You may not want homosexuals to be punished because that would be unloving, but then would you say the same thing about robbers? Wouldn't punishing them be just as unloving?

  What can I say? Because of where I am in history and place, I am a Christian. I cannot help the background. The New Testament was written and available.

  I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple of straightforward yes or no questions then, just to make this completely clear to myself.

  If you only had the Old Testament available, would you be stoning people who broke Biblical rules? Yes or no?

  If Jesus hadn't said one rule was 'highest' would you expect people to be following the old laws, and punishing them if they did not? Yes or no?

  Some other great piece of literature or event would have shaped our society towards good.

  So are you saying the Bible was not needed for us to progress towards a more moral outlook?

  There are social scientists and scholars working on these very questions (nature or nurture).

  I see it as both. Children in the same family can grow up in the same circumstances but end up completely different. They are also influenced by those around them to an extent. The moral zeitgeist can change, and humanity as a whole progresses. It always seems to be moving towards my version of morality though- doing what causes the least suffering and keeping in mind our survival at this point in history.

  ....and why couldn't it be God directing it all? I understand if you've don't buy it.

  It could have been some kind of deist god. It could have been aliens transmitting morality into our brains from invisible spaceships. But there's no reason to believe in any of that. I have proof of the Book of the Dead, so I have good reason to think that exists. I don't think morality comes from that, because people had to write it, and they were writing what was in their thoughts already.
• 

  jgnat

  I am afraid we are going in circles now and I'm going to end the discussion. I feel you are providing opinion rather than proofs. You are also working off several false assumptions about my own belief structure. As a result of that, you are fighting battles that I haven't even declared.

  There is a certain rigor required in classical debate. It's missing here.

  You are a bit of a crusader and although your intent is good, I don't want unintended casualties in the "fight". I specifically joined this discussion because I don't like dogmatism of any kind, and I prefer for JWD readers to feel free to choose their exit in whatever way works for them. If they want to remain Christian and discard the WT dogma, there's a way to do that. If they go all the way as you have, they can do that too. I do think I've offered some alternative ways of looking at the issue of whether belief in God is "good" or "bad", and I'll leave it up to the reader to make their way.
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  I feel I have provided reasons to back up what I believe, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

  I'm in agreement that people can leave the WT in any way they wish. My way ended up being exploring the rest of Christianity and seeing that it was as false as the JW teachings, and wanting others to see that, in the same way you would like people to see the JWs are keeping people trapped in their false worldview. I don't think that makes you dogmatic, so we will have to agree to disagree on what that term means.

  I wish I could have heard the answers to the yes or no questions, but alas, it was not to be. But I thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

  Peace!
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Prevents independent thought.

  No it does not.

  Children are indoctrinated.

  in·doc·tri·nate

  Pronunciation:

  \in- ' däk-tr?- ? nat\

  Function:

  transitive verb

  Inflected Form(s):

  in·doc·tri·nat·ed ; in·doc·tri·nat·ing

  Etymology:

  probably from Middle English endoctrinen, from Anglo-French endoctriner, from en- + doctrine doctrine

  Date:

  1626

  1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach Children are indoctrinated regardless of whether their environment is religious or not. My family fled Atheist Cuba, I could tell you a couple of things about their attempted atheist indoctrination in the state religion.

  Fear of hell/ armageddon.

  Fear of death.

  Fear of life without an invisible friend.

  Sounds like an atheist problem to me.

  People may pray instead of getting or giving real help.

  The one does not preclude the other. Classic "false dilemma" logical fallacy.

  Keeps people ignorant of the facts of life.

  Which are?

  Creates a lack of concern for humanity's problems (if it's believed Jesus will be back any day now to help us out)

  On the contrary, at least if we are talking about Christianity here, an adherence to its precepts creates an interest in the well being of others. Check out all of the Christian charities.

  Holds back science.

  No it does not.

  Killing 'witches' (which continues to this day in some places)

  Chalk this up to ignorance and a human tendency to demonize that which is different.

  Suicide bombing.

  Yes, all religions teach this of course!

  Planes flown into buildings.

  Ditto..

  Killing apostates.

  Ditto.

  Wars.

  Lets talk about the millions killed by avowed atheist states in the last 100 years. Wars persist, despite religion.

  Catholics in Africa telling people condom use is immoral- not helping with the AIDS epidemic.

  Catholics in Africa teaching monogamous heterosexual married sex-the one thing that can stop AIDS. You must admit that those that ignore this are also likely to ignore condoms as well. Read Humanae Vitae sometime.

  Opposing euthanasia.

  No argument there.

  Discrimination of homosexuals.

  This is a social problem. If your argument is correct, this would not exist in atheist societies.

  Killing homosexuals.

  Ditto.

  Women not treated as man's equal.

  Ditto.

  Guilt. Masturbation becomes a sin, people are made to feel they're not worthy and deserve death and that only religion can 'save' them.

  Guilt is the natural response of a well formed conscience.

  People may give up on their dreams in this life hoping for a better afterlife.

  Atheists may give up their dreams in bitter hopelessness and futilty. I've seen plenty of bitter angry hopeless atheists in my time.

  In short, to listen to you would make one think that a fully atheistic and areligious society would not have any of these problems. I submit to you that all of the above would be WORSE.