by Recovery 398 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Divination via the Urim and Thummim.
In ancient Israelite religion and culture, Urim and Thummim ( Hebrew : ?????? ??????? , Standard ha?Urim v?haTummim Tiberian ha?Ûrîm w?hatTummîm ) is a phrase from the Hebrew Scriptures or Torah associated with the hoshen ( High Priest's breastplate), divination in general, and cleromancy in particular. Most scholars suspect that the phrase refers to specific objects involved in the divination. [1]
Numbers - magic rituals and curses
13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousycome over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord . 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord , he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse [d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.
Ahh, thank you AnnoMaly for pointing this out. You have precisely showed why there is a difference between magic and a miracle. ...
... A magic trick is something performed by the power of Satan that has supernatural repercussions (as in this case, the expelling of demons). A miracle is never performed by Satan because a miracle is something done by God, by God's holy spirit. That is why Jesus made the clear distinction between the two. They are not interchangeable.
You totally missed the point I was trying to make - "whatever the source, the effect was the same - a man was magically/miraculously cured." To the onlookers who didn't believe Jesus was from God, it was sorcery. To those who did believe Jesus was from God, it was a miracle. Each side witnessed exactly the same supernatural event but attributed its origin differently. Even though Jesus' 'magic' was from God, others viewed it as demonic.
Also the quote about Daniel is another example of a false analogy. Jehovah's Witnesses have many publications explaining spiritism and other things we consider to be false religions (such as Buddhism, Catholicism, Taoism, Islam) and so forth. There is no objection us studying such subjects. It is an entirely different thing to condone the practices of such things, which is what Jwfacts is insinuating Jehovah did with "magic tricks".
Again, you weren't on my wavelength. Perhaps I should have c&p-ed what I was responding to. Leolaia (at the top of p. 6) made the point that Daniel would have learned the Chaldean magical arts as part of his training and yet he was not defiled by it. He accepted his new pagan name and he was not defiled by it. He took a stand on idolatry and on forbidden foods, but not on learning Chaldean mysticism.
You took issue with the idea that Daniel had this kind of education so that was what I was responding to, quoting from the Daniel's Prophecy book.
Taking this further then, if Daniel was not defiled by his Chaldean training in the dark arts (i.e. being educated on the methods of REAL magic), why insist that a child can be defiled by playing with a plastic toy that has no real magical properties?
So recovery my friend.... Im left wondering.....
If the only differance between a miracle and magic is the source...... How do you determine the source? Bear in mind, according to you, same act, se result, only differance is the source....
@ mP: cool and you're right.
Great thread y'all. I'm enjoying it immensely.
Wowee Qcumber!
See what goodies are to be found in the bible.
Shes a witch! Burn her!
Ad Hominem attacks (whether about Recovery, or him using WTS material in response) is not a good way to respond to his position he believes in. If it seems there is no need to keep talking, and agree to disagree, that is one thing. But attacking him is uncalled for (as well as him attacking others). Name calling, making fun, insulting, etc. All of that has nothing to do with critical thinking and being rational, reasonable, and logical. I understand it can be hard to keep emotions at bay (I'm not always rational, reasonable, and logical myself). But please, enough with the name calling and insults. It does not add anything to the discussion.
A miracle is never performed by Satan because a miracle is something done by God, by God's holy spirit. That is why Jesus made the clear distinction between the two. They are not interchangeable. They are not synonyms. As false analogy is defined: " A false analogy is where an invalid conclusion is drawn from a comparison between two apparently similar situations, but different in the manner INVOKED."
Recovery, did you even read what I wrote earlier in this thread about false analogies (which can also include weak analogies). Please go back and re-read, as the definition you give is not the only way an analogy can be fallacious. The one you point to, " A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked" seems to come from the site T he Skeptic Guide to the Universe (perhaps from some othersite as you didn't mention your references). Here is what it says in full (including the part you are quoting in highlight):
False Analogy
Analogies are very useful as they allow us to draw lessons from the familiar and apply them to the unfamiliar. Life is like a box of chocolate – you never know what you’re going to get.
A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked. Saying that the probability of a complex organism evolving by chance is the same as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and created a 747 by chance is a false analogy. Evolution, in fact, does not work by chance but is the non-random accumulation of favorable changes.
Creationists also make the analogy between life and your home, invoking the notion of thermodynamics or entropy. Over time your home will become messy, and things will start to break down. The house does not spontaneously become more clean or in better repair.
The false analogy here is that a home is an inanimate collection of objects. Whereas life uses energy to grow and reproduce – the addition of energy to the system of life allows for the local reduction in entropy – for evolution to happen.
Another way in which false analogies are invoked is to make an analogy between two things that are in fact analogous in many ways – just not the specific way being invoked in the argument. Just because two things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are analogous in every way. 1
One of the examples of a bona fide false analogy I've underlined above. Evolution does not work by chance. That is a common misconception. So the premise of the analogy is already flawed (as it's based on a misconception). This is also a very weak analogy as well, but foremost a false one to begin with.
When it comes to miracle vs. magic analogy, by saying it is a false analogy, you are primarily asserting that the premise of the comparision, as used by jwfacts, is flawed. That premise you view as flawed is that miracles from the god of the bible are not any different in practice than the magic from Satan (or other gods). You then object and say there is a difference, otherwise they wouldn't have different names you reason. You say the bible makes a distinction itself between the two. You say the difference is in the source of the supernatural event.
I agree that if one believes magic and miracles actually are real (a premise you must have to make the false analogy claim), there could be a distinction here with a difference. What others are tryng to point out though is if one does not believe them to be real (does not agree with your starting premise), then there is a distinction, but only with words and point of view (i.e. source), that this distinction has no practical difference. Hence, there is no false analogy fallacy at play. So to really get anywhere with whether or not there is a false analogy, one has to first establish if the starting premise is even true (did miracles and magic actually happen, or was it just mans way of explaining the unexplainable in a time when people were overwhelmed with ignorance about the world in which they lived).
Thus, if one accepts the premise that magic and miracles can't/didn't happen, we have no false analogy, but we can then consider if we have a weak analogy as I mentioned earlier. Please go back and read that post if you want to see if the weak analogy fallacy applies here.
I'd also like to add, that even if a person is making a weak analogy, it is possible that it is not neccessarily fallacious. In the other post in this thread, I quoted form Fallacy Files. It makes this point:
Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premisses, it is not solely determined by that strength. 2
I agree it is easy to find fault with an analogy and claim it is weak or false. Thus the context in which it is used, and other evidence or premisses it is based on (or perhaps contrary evidence), are important to consider when making such claims.
1 "Top 20 Logical Fallacies." The Skeptic Guide to the Universe. 25 Sept. 2012 <http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx>.
2 Curtis, Gary. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 25 Setp. 2012. <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.
Winston Smith asked:
"Can you please help me to understand how 'miracle' and 'magic' are "distinctive and not interchangeable" with each other when the reference work noted above links the two? I'm trying to get my head around this."
Setting aside the monumental problem that magic/miracles have never been proven to exist (!), JWs frequently engage in a psychological phenomenon referred to as "narcissism of small differences", thinking themselves superior to other religions over incredibly minor differences, eg believing Jesus died on a stake vs cross. And relevance is WHAT, exactly? Generally speaking, it's expressed as a tendency to make mountains out of molehills, and is like a contagion in its transmissibility; it infects many who were/are exposed to such tendencies, and they begin to adopt similar thinking patterns, using "group logic". Bad associations do indeed spoil useful habits (including reasoning skills).
KS, thats an interesting phenominon and dubbies certainly seem to fit the mold
Sorry for the large font: I wasn't shouting, but posting from a phone browser which doesn't always depict font size as large as it looks when viewed from a "real" computer (esp when cutting and pasting a prior comment: somehow that triggers mega-font size, for some goofy reason?).
EE said:
KS, thats an interesting phenominon and dubbies certainly seem to fit the mold
Yup. The term was coined by Freud, a Jew who certainly saw it on display in his religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences
It's a quite ancient behavioral practice, one that is on display in religions where the unique cultural identity of the group is threatened with extinction due to becoming subsumed into another.
(eg when in exile in Babylon, the young Israelites were seduced by the more newfangled science-based Babylonian beliefs, and forgot their own Hebrew traditions; hence the leadership codified the Torah, etc in an attempt to support their unique identity, and to isolate the sub-group, ie "we don't do THAT, because THEY do that: instead, we do THIS..." to encourage "in-group vs out-group", "us vs them" mentality. Who knew that they'd be so successful, and it would lead to violence and hatred 2,500 years later?)
It's not just Jews: all sub-groups maintain/discourage specific cultural markers in their struggle to preserve group identity when under threat of being assimilated into another (dominant) group.
Sounds familiar, with JW youth being surrounded by Worldly temptations, where it even expresses as a disdain for fist-bumping (which IS the Worldly young person's version of hand-shaking)? If you have disdain for even a simple greeting, that pretty much guarantees social isolation from others, as a member of the "out-group" who looks down their nose at the trivial differences with others. You can leave the JWs, but that kind of corrosive world view doesn't just disappear overnight, ESPECIALLY if you're not even aware that you HAVE it!
The beginning, the roots of that kind of thinking, are clearly seen in the Sparlock DVD: Caleb is not allowed to go to the Sparlock movie with his schoolmates, because JWs don't do that (magic). So Caleb is learning an important first lesson here, even if he doesn't know it yet. It starts with rejecting Sparlock the Wizard....
