by fairchild 71 Replies latest jw friends
Thank you all, I have gotten some very useful replies. Thank you for the time you have taken to answer, it is very much appreciated.
After reading every post carefully, I must admit that the opinions vary.. and I am still confused. I am going to take some time to review all the comments and do some reading up on writes that were suggested in this thread.
I was also wondering if anyone had any comments to the bible quote of 2Peter 3:1-9, posted by leolaila, a few posts above this one?
Hey Justin, yours was a very interesting post. I'm not sure which side of the fence I am on (to use that metaphor). I cannot bring myself to stop believing in a creator, but I am riddled with doubts about who or what that creator might be. I like the approach taken by Susan Jeffers (of Feel the Fear & Do It Anyway fame). In her more recent book, Embracing Uncertainty, she discusses the word, syat, used by the Jains of India. It roughly means, "To the best of my knowledge at this time". In other words, as humans our knowledge and learning are not only progressive but also limited. It takes humility to say, "It just don't know for sure; but this is my best guess at this time...etc"
I feel such relief when, after I've struggled to better comprehend some concept or idea, I let go of the need to be absolutely certain about it. Belief is seldom, if ever, a matter of self-discipline - and if it is, it doesn't say much about the belief. Yet, my experience and observation as a JW was that they seemed too scared to think through the implications of Watchtower teachings and had this unhealthy need to always be right and to shut the door on acknowledging other points of view.
I like what you said about non-believers being as prone to dogmatism as are believers. It recalls some thoughts I had a while ago when creationists and evolutionists slogged it out in our local newspaper: "Spare me from people who are so convinced they are right that they cannot listen accurately to what their "opponents" are saying." To me, it is so sad that people relegate beliefs to such a high place in their lives that it leads them to belittle and de-humanize their fellow human beings.
Am I concerned about this tendency to elevate one's own firm views and denegrate all others? In a way I am, but I don't think my role in life is to do anything about it - because that could easily lead me to a kind of inverted pride: the dubious notion that others need to consider my point of view in order for them to accurately think matters through. No, been there, done that. Sometimes it's totally cool to leave the believers and non-believers to their interminable "arguing". On the other hand, it may not be "arguing": I'm open to the possibility that forums such as this one can be a very useful forum for exchanging views and I'm even open to modifying my views.
steve2,
Good, I'm glad to see that there are some sources we can go to which may prepare us to face radical uncertainty if the culture continues to shift in that direction. I'm not sure how noticeable such a shift will be to the average person, as many people already find fault with those who think they are right simply because of their dogmatism. But it would seem that extremely conservative groups might end up like the Amish - isolated with their horses and buggies. There certainly won't be much opportunity for evangelism then!
fairchild,
2 Peter 3 illustrates what I mentioned - that the solution to any perceived "delay" was to put off the "end" indefinitely - not to continually set new dates as JWs have done. It was a solution that lasted a long time until people started speculating about the end-times again.
Brownboy is back!!!!!
Justin,
I think, too, that the lack of evidence for there being a crisis in the Christian communities after the "delay in the Parousia" provides a contrast between the Church and the JWs today. In reading the Apostolic Fathers (late first, early second century) and the Apologists (2nd to 3rd centuries) we do not find any attempt to set new dates for the end, as Adventists, Russell and JWs have done. We find no written record of any disappointment, which I suppose could be used to argue that in fact there was no perceived delay - although I personally would not use this as an argument. But it does indicate that the community was not so imbedded in apocalyticism that it could not move on. What had been expected as an early fulfillment was but off indefinitely and, by the fifth century, Augustine dealt a death-blow to apocalypticism by interpretting the Millennium symbolically - the so-called "amillennial" theory which was considered orthodox until recently. The fact that there have been some apocalyptic revivals over the course of 2,000 years does not negate the fact that the post-70 C.E. church handled the situatation quite successfully.
I think there is much evidence for an "eschatological crisis" right in the NT. 2 Peter is a good example, and so are the added parables in Matthew and Luke about "waiting" and "staying awake". However, it is not a unified evolution, as some trends of what was eventually labeled Christianity were aneschatological (neologism?) right from the beginning (e.g. Johannism, or the Alexandrine epistle to the Hebrews). Eschatological trends, on the other hand, remained alive for a long time in some fringe segments of the Church (Revelation, Justin Martyr) and came up again throughout the Church history (e.g. Joachim of Flora in the 12th century).
In a post-modern worldview, the idea of truth itself becomes relative. We are faced with the prospect that there may not be an ultimate truth for us to apprehend. What becomes important is our own subjective experience based in the communities to which we belong. How are we to proceed with such a worldview? This is a problem which is faced, not just by those whose decision is to remain religious or even Christian (such as myself), but by those who are unbelievers as well.
I deeply agree on that. But I feel that the kind of Christianity which can aptly survive (at least on a philosophical level) in post-modernity would be better termed post-Christianity. Historical Christianity has an essential claim to an absolute truth (just as 19th-Century scientism had, just substituting the "universal observer" myth to the metaphysical "God" myth) which is, imo, hardly compatible with the postmodern view.
Fairchild,
Okay, but then what do we do with the prophecies regarding the Messiah? Like the time and place of his birth, his line of descend, his betrayal for 30 pcs of silver, etc.. isn't it true that Christians say that the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Messiah as written in the Hebrew scriptures are proof that he really was the messiah?I'm afraid all those "prophecies" appeared as such only when the OT was re-read from a Christian perspective. Actually this Christian reading of the OT was an essential part in the writing of the NT: the texts about Jesus' place of birth (only Matthew and Luke) etc. were actually the result of this new reading of the older Jewish sacred texts.
(Narkissos) I'm afraid all those "prophecies" appeared as such only when the OT was re-read from a Christian perspective. Actually this Christian reading of the OT was an essential part in the writing of the NT: the texts about Jesus' place of birth (only Matthew and Luke) etc. were actually the result of this new reading of the older Jewish sacred texts.
Narkissos... are you saying they read the OT and THEN wrote the NT based on what they read in the OT?
Brownboy, no offence, but your post was kinda creepy.
... are you saying they read the OT and THEN wrote the NT based on what they read in the OT?
Simply put, yes.
Reading other contemporary texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas and gnostic works, makes interesting reading.
Matt.24 could be rendered that your life will be turned upside down and the kingdom will enter your very soul...
Beyond that, if you are going to take any of it as having physically happened, I would go for a first century fulfillment.
I don't have any time for "end-times" prophecy.
Edited to add:
Brownboy, I'm seriously starting to worry about you.
You really should get medical assistance.
(.Narkissos).. are you saying they read the OT and THEN wrote the NT based on what they read in the OT?Simply put, yes
If that is true, then we have to throw the idea out the door that the bible is inspired by God, which I would truly hate to do.
Little toe, glad I'm not the only one worried about BB here.
